Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 1

message: I thought it was interesting that this article was flagged for not being neutral. I am Assyrian and the reason my family came to the U.S. was because of how the Christians were treated in the strict Middle Eastern countries under fundamental Islamic rule. Maybe it's best that everyone gets a chance to read what really goes on in those countries who do what they do in the name of Islam. 
I've heard plenty of times that Assyrians don't exist, but we do. We've managed to keep our culture strong by staying close to our people throughout the Arabization of the Middle East. 
This should be integrated with Assyria and made to redirect there. --Delirium 08:30 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I don't think so.  Assyria is about an ancient country.  Assyrian is about a modern-day people.  RickK 08:33 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
: Yeah, but they're related -- they're the people in the region that used to be Assyria.  I'd personally prefer one article on Assyria with sections on ancient and modern history, and a note of any links that might exist between those. But I'm not entirely opposed to separate articles.  In particular the recent updates about ancient empires seem to be very much in keeping with the other article. --Delirium 08:35 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The use of Assyrian to distinguish these people has been a consistent policy of modern Iraq. This article makes no mention of this long-standing aspect of Iraqi nationalist propaganda, or any of the notorious massacres of 'Assyrians' in Iraq. Connections with Assyria of antiquity are tenuous. Wetman 11:52, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Assyrians did not disappear from the region after the fall of Nineveh their capital.
Although it is true that some did blend into the new more powerful cultures many did not. 
Further in their history the reason for not assimilating with these new cultures was mostly 
religious, as Assyrians were amongst the worlds first people to convert and one of the few in 
the region and thus inter marriage and assimilation where never encouraged, which resulted in 
the continues persecution of these people who are much too familiar with the concept of jihad 
which the west has most recently been introduced too.
:From the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC to the Christian conversion of the "Assyrians" in the 2nd century AD is a long stretch of time, just in itself. This is like modern Greeks being "true sons of Homer", or Mussolini the direct heir of Rome.  It's not history, and besides we've heard it all before...  --Wetman 10:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it all depends on what one means by "disappear." The references to "Assyrians" in Persian chronicles need to be entered into the revised version of the article at Assyrian/Revision, as long as you can supply the names and approximate dates (century) of the texts, as with all the good history articles at Wikipedia. These mentions would form a background to the story of modern Assyrians, even if the connection with Nineveh remains tenuous. Some Ottoman mentions of Assyrians pre-1900 would be even more important. --Wetman 03:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assyrians did not disappear 

message: In a timid effort to balance somewhat this very unbalanced article I have added a link to an alternative point of view. I do not want to edit the text itself, being no expert on Modern Assyrians. (anon. reader)
:Don't be so shy! Dr Ross' article is an excellent link. This entry currently makes no distinctions between Aramaeans and Chaldeans, as Dr Ross does. Merely exchanging one label for another or asserting a single nationalist view is not enough: some editing is needed. So I have made a working-space Assyrian/Revision where we can all work peacefully behind-the-scenes, until we get this entry balanced and correct and agree that it can be posted in lieu of the unsatisfactory present one. Wetman 20:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative point of view 

message: Modern Assyrians have nothing to do with the ancient Assyrians. The ancient Assyrians were exterminated, and that has beem clearly illustrated in the Bible. The New Assyrians can be traced to the Syriac Arameans of Levant, They were called Athuri to designate the Arameans(Suriyanees) of Athur region around Mosul. Then the Protestant missionaries(especially Wigram) came to set up a counter attack against the Catholic church who turned some of Suriyanees into Catholicsm and were given the name Chaldean Church(has also nothing to do with ancient Chaldeans). The british empire invented this new identity to justify a Christian rule over the not so lang migrated Arabs and Turks. But It resulted in uneefective mobilisation of the Christians and were bloodly massacred in 1933, at the hands of the Iraqi government then. Modern Assyrians are less in numbers comparing to their Chaldean counterpart, who make up the majority of Iraq's Christian population. Most of the current Assyrians(Suriyanees) were brought from to Turkey to Iraq, and populated the Kurdish villages around Mosul.
First of all, apologies for disturbing you, but I feel that recent changes (12 August) of user Assyria 90 may have reverted the article from a Neutral Point of View to a very biased one, thus making the former effort on this work worth nothing. However, as I am new to Wikipedia, I would like to hear your opinnion first. Thanks in advance
Jamuki
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia.  I've been here for a few months, but this is the first time I've ever seen "POV Check".  It sounds pretty scary and formidable to me.  I noticed you didn't even use a real template, but made up something just for this page that "looks" like a template...  Generally, the procedure here is, if there is any specific issue with the text, you can specifically change it yourself, or else you can specifically address the specific parts that you feel are not NPOV, here on the discussion page.  I'm not sure what throwing up a blanket banner without specifying anything would accomplish.  Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 16:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pov Check

message: Assyrian Identity is an essay. Such facts as it contains should be merged into this article. dab (ᛏ) 17:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: essays

message: The term Assyrian carries a lot of meaning. It is ambiguous and the reason why people are fighting here is because they are mixing the different meanings of the term. It can mean:
*-Member of the Assyrian church of the East 
*-Speaker of eastern syriac or assyrian Neo-Aramaic. Assyrian speak an eastern dialect of syriac/aramean. But sometimes they are all called Syriac (western and eastern speaker of syriac). This definition would include the members of the Chaldean_Catholic_Church, the catholic version of the Assyrian church.
*-Member of the antique assyrian civilisation. Note that initially, antique Assyrians did not speak an aramaic language. They had their own different semitic language which was called Assyrian and was not related to aramaic. Text below is copied from the page Assyrian Neo-Aramaic 
::Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is a modern Eastern Aramaic or Assyrian language. Assyrian Neo Aramaic is not to be confused with Assyrian Akkadian, or the Old Aramaic dialect that was adopted as a lingua franca in Assyria in the 8th century BC. Originally, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic was spoken in the area between Lake Urmia, north-western Iran, and Siirt, south-eastern Turkey, but it is now the language of a worldwide diaspora. Most speakers are members of the Assyrian Church of the East.
In their majority, modern assyrians come from the North of Iraq, where they were ethnically 'cleansed' from the region now known as kurdistan. As an aramean speaking people, they are closely related to the ancient Ninive civilisation but they likely descent from a mix of Northern arameans, some or most of these aramean populations were under the control of old Assyrian empire. Bear in mind that this is simplification as identities are partially built on a myth : modern jews claim to descent from ancient hebrews (partially true), same for modern arabs and ethnic arabs (very partially true). And evey modern american can claim the original founding fahters as their cultural ancestors.
--equitor 16:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Where are your ancient historical references for the above claim? Let us  not confuse a 20th cnetury writer's opinion with historical facts. You write "Assyrians were ethnically 'cleansed' from the region now known as kurdistan". What does that means and when did it happen? The Reason Assyrians speak the Aramean languaue is because it was the policy of the Assyrian empire to make the Aramean language lingua Franka especially since it had an easy to write alphabet. In later centuries the Aramean language was spoken by the Jews, Cannanites, Egytions, Etiuopian, even Chrisitans of Indea. It is absurd to call all these people arameans. The language Modern Assyrians speak includes thousands of Akkadian words. Check a list of them  As far as Assyrians having assimilating Arameans it did not alter their Assyrian identity. All nations have assimilated others from time to time without losing their heritage. The homeland of the Arameans was in syria and not Assyria. Those who lived in Assyria after the 612 B.C. defeat never identified  themselves as Arameans. The term Syrian or Syriac have derived from Assyrian and not from Aramean. The fact that Arameans were called by these other names is  because They did not have a strong national identity and the region west of  Euphrates  was part of the Assyrian empire. warda
The mid 19th century translation of the Persian inscriptions attest to the existence of Assyria and Assyrians as part of the Persian empire.
The Nagshe Rostam inscription by Darius (512-48) which lists the national types of the Persian Empire includes the Assyrians . A reference to them reads as: "Iyam Asuryah", "this is an Assyrian" which is very similar to the term "Suryah" a name christian Assyrians have identified themselves by. (Sukumar Sen, "Old Persian Inscriptions of the Achamenian Emperors," University of Calcutta 1941 p. 107) 
The Behistun inscription of Darius in the beginning of his rule lists 23 countries as part of his empire including: "Persis, Huza (Elam), Babiru (Babylon), Athura (Assyria)...."(Josef Wiesehofer, Azizeh Azodi Trans., "Ancient Persia From 550 BC to 650 AD, I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1969.) 
"Proclaims Xerexes, the king: "By the favor of Ahura Meazda; these are the people/countries of which I was king of....Persia, Media, Elam, Armenia, Drangiana, parhia, Aria, Bactri a, Sogdia, Choresmia, Babylonia, ASSYRIA, Stagydia, Lydia, Egypt......" (Josef Wiesehofer, Azizeh Azodi Trans., "Ancient Persia From 550 BC to 650 AD, I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1969.)  
The fifth century B.C. Herodotus describes the Assyrian troops as part of the Persian empire's army of king xerexes (486-465/4): "The Assyrians went to war with helmets upon their head, made of brass, and plated in strange fashion, which is not easy to describe. .... These people, whom Greeks call Syrian, are called Assyrian by the barbarians." Assyrians and babylonians together consisted of five infantries and were led by Otaspes son of Artchaies. The Herodotus Barbarians meant the Persians, the Armenians and other none Greek.
Those who question the identity of the contemporary Assyrians justify it by the fact that they been known primarily as Syrians and Suraye during most of the christian Era. The critics seem to be unaware that after the defeat of the Persians by Alexander, his generals ruled Mesopotamia and the land west of Euphrates from 330 to 145 B.C. and called them collectively Syria which according to their historians and ordinary people it meant the Assyrian empire.
The first century B.C. Strabo attests to this fact when he writes:" When those who have written histories about  the Syrian empire say that the Medes were overthrown by the Persians and the Syrians by the Medes, they mean by the Syrian no other people than those who built the royal palaces in Babylon and Ninus; and of these Syrians, Ninus was the man who founded Ninus [Nineveh], in Aturia..[Assyria]. (H.L. Jones Translation of "Geography of Strabo", New York 1916, Vol. VIII p.195) 
While one has to admit that inhabitants west of Euphrates were not Assyrians, there is no reaon to doubt the Assyrian identity of those living in the Assyria proper. According to Strabo the country of the Assyrians at his time included babylon and Aturia [Assyria]. Later he writes the name 'Syrians' extends from Babylon to the Gulf of Issus [the Mediteranean Sea]. (Strabo p.193) This was the extent of the Assyrian empire before its fall. 
The third century Roman historian Justinus also attests to this fact. He wrote: "The  Assyrians, who were afterwards called Syrians, held their empire thirteen hundred years." (Marcus Junianus Justinus Epitome of the Philippic, "History of Pompeius Trogus", translated by Rev. John Selby Watson. (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853)
 
The above refences clearly prove that the term Syrians and Suraye applied to the inhabitants of Mesopotamia denoted Assyrians who later became Christians.
Archaeological discoveries also indicate that the Assyrian community in Ashur "[c]ontinued to worship it's national god and his consort, on the same spot as their ancestors had done before the disasters of 612 B.C., although in a new temple. As late as AD 200-28, they were using such grand old personal names as Sin/ahe/erba, even Esarhaddon...." (Malcom A.R. Colledge, "The Parthians",  Praegr, New York 1967, p.46.)
Iraqi Department of Antiquities between 1951 and 1955, discovered nine temples in the city of Hatra dedicated to the Assyrian deities such as Shamash, Sin, Nergal and one to the Assyrian God, "Ashur Bel " The head of the Ashur Bel's statue found in Hatra is broken, but the remaining curled square beard  is characteristically similar to the imperial Assyrian kings. (Edward Bacon, "Digging for History", Archaeological Discoveries Throughout the World, 1945 to 1959", New York 1960, p. 205.)
:I am not denying any of these facts, on the contrary. What I meant is that in recent history, Assyrians were mainly present in the upper part of Iraq and Eastern Turkey because they were progressively driven out by Auslims/Arabs from the plains. They went through large-scale massacres in 1915 (under Ottoman Empire) and in the 30's (in Iraq). This is a fact and is not a controversial issue. Also Assyrians or Syriacs or whatever we name them, while retaining a strong ethnic/national identity remain divided along religious lines (Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Chaldean, Assyrian church of the east etc...) --equitor 20:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: The NPOV banner has been here for two months now. Most of the article was modified since then. Is anyone opposed to removing te banner and if yes, can this persons specify what is to be debated so we can continue in improving the article? Cause I lost the track. Thanks--equitor 21:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess that everything has been resolved? I'll remove the POV tag this week in this case.--equitor 18:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV banner 

message: Hi,
Assyrian Identity has been marked for a merge; whoever marked it suggested that it be merged with Assyrian, but someone (more rightly, I think) suggested that it be merged into this article. I'm hesitant to merge it without input, though. Assyrian Identity has issues with neutral point of view, and it looks like people have spent a lot of time trying to fix that on this page already. Would anyone more familiar with the issues at hand here be interested in either just merging the two articles or working with me to merge them?
Thanks,
Hbackman 03:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging? 

message: I have removed two entire sections from this article as they are obvious copyright violations. I removed the section entitled Assyrians In Ancient Times And Today. You will find the text word for word in the last section of the copyrighted document http://www.nineveh.com/parpola_eng.pdf. I also removed the entire lead section, which is from http://www.aina.org/articles/assyrians.htm, and is also copyrighted material. I replaced it with the lead section in existence before the violation took place (this diff). I hope that explains my rather drastic edits. --Gareth Hughes 15:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You completely misunderstand copyright. The copyright symbol does not need to be present for the work to be copyright: if it is present, it is as a reminder. The websites that use this work may equally be violating the copyright of the original author. To reproduce this material in Wikipedia, you need permission to do so. This permission can be specific — the original author gives written permission to Wikipeidia — or general — the original work carries a message the the work is public domain or otherwise reproducable under GFDL. Most editors of Wikipedia try to write their own material rather than copying from others. The presumedly copyright material must be removed until it can be proved otherwise. --Gareth Hughes 12:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violations 

message: I suggest removing most ancient historical data to Assyrians.
:I propose keeping it here, in a section about History. //Big Adamsky 23:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Most historical referrences to a different page. 

message: Assyria is our nation. Syriac Aramaic is our Language. Christianity is our Religion! These are the facts. Aram/Syria was never independant of Assyria, after the fall of Nineveh and eventually the fall of Babylon it was incorporated into Greco-Roman Empires. Even Phoenecia/Canaan eventually became an Assyrian colony. The inhabitants were deported to Nineveh and Babylon and merged into Assyrian culture. That is the fact.
:That's also part of Jewish history. Although I wouldn't say merged in the traditional sense. The Jewish population that didn't return, went on to become todays Syrian Jews. There are probally archeological sources to support this, but I'm just to lazy to look for them.
- - - -
So Imperial control of a region automatically means it belong
to the conquering nation forever?
Thae act is, Syria was under Anatolian Ottoman rule for longer
than Neo-Assyrian rule, does that mean Syria is forver now a 
part of Turkey?
MYLO 09:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our Future Nation 

message: I really dont see anything wrong with this entry? "Assyrian" is an ethnicity. "Syriac" is a language. Why would you want to merge it? That is like merging the "English_language" page with the "USA" wiki entry.
Also, there have been many references to people calling themselves Assyrians hundreds of years ago (e.g. in years 967-1000 AD and 1072-1090 AD, the Assyrian Church of the East had 2 patriarchs with "Aturaya" in their names, which means "Assyrian" in the Syriac language, Mari Aturaya and Odishu Aturaya II respectivly) so you can't really say they have no connection to the ancient Assyrians.
...and could people please actualy point out what is wrong with the article rather than just posting a one line "this article is false"?
202.7.166.169 07:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing wrong with it 

message: Why is there no category specifically for Assyrian people? I know there is one for Syriacs, but many do not identify themselves as such, preferring "Assyrian." SouthernComfort 14:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at the talk page of Syriacs/miniproject, you'll understand what's going on: some activists have decided to change all mentions of "Assyrian" into "Syriacs", included for the Assyrian genocide, now "Syriac genocide". As they're discussing and modifying articles and templates among themselves without any "higher" interference, you'll see that Maronites, and even all Lebanese, have now suddenly become "Syriacs" without being aware of it... Next on line, the Mandeans and the Targumic Jews because they speak (or spoke) aramaic ? --Pylambert 23:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading through some of the discussions, I have to say that all this is going to needlessly confuse the reader, especially considering the terms "Assyrian" and "Chaldean" are far more prevalent and familiar than "Syriac," which from what I understand is solely a linguistic term - not an actual ethnic grouping. Mind you I am far from being an expert in this topic, but amongst Assyrians/Chaldeans in Iran (and those of Iranian descent here in N. America) I have never heard anyone identify as "Syriac." If there is precedent for usage of the term "Syriac" as an umbrella term for a group of peoples (like Iranian peoples, for instance), that's fine, but that shouldn't mean that "Assyrian" and "Chaldean" suddenly become non-existent on WP. SouthernComfort 12:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Assyrian people?

message: "Assyrians are either:
the inhabitants of the ancient empire of Assyria 
the followers of the Assyrian Church of the East" 
How about either or both? 
Chaldean 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Either?

message: Why is the lead paragraph of this article disambiguation-like, especially when Assyrian is already a disambiguation page? Wouldn't it be easier to add something along the lines of "For other uses of the term, see Assyrian" at the top of the page? --3345345335534 14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page 

message: I already made two or even more comments. Its very strange that you did not see them, Pylambert and Khoikhoi. I will quote them:
Nobody can prove any people today descendents from the people 6000 years ago. So if it will be like this we can change every article where it says "They descendents from .....". The Kurds doesnt have evidence about their origin although nobody complains when they write they are descendents by ancient Medians or what they ever write. When an Assyrian claims his people is ancient he gets everybody on him since its something wrong with people today. Instead of helping their Christian brothers & sisters they want to destroy for them. --Yohanun 07:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My comments

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pylambert
He claims we are not an ethnic group. I hope that an administrator that reads it bans him from contributing to any articles related to Assyrian.
:When did I say that you're not an ethnic group? --Khoikhoi 00:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  " I'm sure that people like User:Assyria 90 believe that his people are an ethnic group" And you personally don't? Chaldean 23:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Khoikhoi didn't write Assyrians are not an ethnic group, he merely answered my statement on his talk page: "Assyrians don't actually exist as an ethnic group, it is a national category not recognized as such by all the people whom Assyrianists claim as Assyrians.". As there's no credible alternate name (Arameans and Syriacs are only used in some diaspora circles), I use Assyrians, but I am well aware that many people included in this category don't feel like being members of a larger ethnic group, they are e.g. Syrian or Turkish nationals and followers of one of the Oriental (uniate or independent) churches and they speak a neo-Aramaic language/dialect, but for many their distaste for those from the rival church is so great that they don't want to be associated with them. Thence the use of "Syriacs" or "Arameans" by some church dignitaries to stress the sectarian particularisms. I think the article Ethnic group should include a section about the post-Ottoman (and surrounding) countries, or maybe a separate article, but I'm afraid it would need much work to make this all clear. There's need to explain e.g. the ethnic- and nation-related terms in every language there, like taifa, watan, qawm in Arabic, eda, shevatim and le'om in Hebrew. But this would be on the fringe of original research. --Pylambert 11:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me first start off by saing I always get so impressed when I see a non-Assyrian knowing so much about the our situation, since no light has ever been shed on it in the west. Here is the dillema; do people question the Greeks being connected to the ancient Greek civilization? Do people question Italians being connected to teh ancient Roman Empire? No. Why? Both of their empires fell like the Assyrian one. So just because we don't have our own country, our ethnicity should be questioned? If you are concerned about the possiblity of Assyrians been wipped out after their emprire in  BC, then how come the Romans, some 800 years after the fall of the Assyrian Empire, decided to name one of their providence "Assyria"? Now, in all of the years of AD, you can look at any ancient AD map, incuding most important, the maps by the Greeks, you will always find a "Assyria" in the map, be it the year 700 or 1400. The last time Assyrians had independence was during the Ottoman Rule of 1500 - 1700, when clearly stated by the Ottomans, giving their rights to govern themselfs, and reffering to them as "Assyrians." So what is really hold you back? Chaldean 17:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Do people question the Greeks being connected to the ancient Greek civilization? Do people question Italians being connected to teh ancient Roman Empire?" Yes, of course, even if the present languages are derived from the ancient ones, no one would actually dare writing that Italians are the descendants of the ancient Romans or that modern Greeks are the descendans of ancient Greeks, though the latter is more common among some Greek nationalist circles (cf. the controversy over the name of the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"). It has been sciebntifically proved that modern Greeks are the descendants of hellenized Slavs, Albanians and whatsoever (existing or extinct) ethnic groups present in what's nowadays Greece and Turkey, be they Lydians or Goths and even Turks and Gauls. --Pylambert 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read khoikhoi's section under Assyrians. 

message: It is true that there are members of the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic Churches who call themselves "Assyrians", but certainly not all of them. Many prefer different names: "Arameans" or "Suryoye/Suryâye" (in English often referred to as "Syriacs"). This should be reflected in the article. The fact that some scientists use the name "Assyrians" to refer to all people in the West Syrian and East Syrian traditions, does not mean that it is a neutral, and scientifically sound name! --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like you to give scientific references (sociology, political science, history) where "Arameans" and "Syriacs" are used for this metaethnic category. The only ethnic censuses in the region were the Russian and Soviet ones, they used the Assyrian (Aisor) ethnonym. In all the other countries, only the religious categories were - and are - used and people aren't allowed (except in the US-occupied Iraq)to express anything else than religious minority identities by nationalist (and often not much democratic) regimes. The Syriacs/Aramean/Assyrian dispute is more a diaspora problem than a Middle East one, except in Iraq where most organisations have chosen Chald(e)o-Assyrians. Somewhat like some Berber movements in France and elsewhere outside Maghreb who try to build a Berber national identity, with also a Berber TV channel. Another example is the concept of "Bretons": either all the inhabitants of Brittany or only those, including outside Brittany, who listen to Breton music, try to learn back the Breton language etc. --Pylambert 20:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The Syriacs/Aramean/Assyrian dispute is more a diaspora problem than a Middle East one, except in Iraq where most organisations have chosen Chald(e)o-Assyrians." I am suprised you are aware of this. Indeed, back home, everyone calls themselfs Ashuri. The ChaldoAssyrian term is not used by normal civilians, it is only used by Assyrian politicians who kinda worry loosing their grip on the Chaldean population. But indeed, this name despote is only  in diaspora. Now, speaking of this, what in the world is the "Syriac Genocide"? It has never ever been called this, and I have never in my life seen this term ever used. It has always been the "Ashuri Mota" - the killing of the Assyrians in our Syriac language. Chaldean 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that you and A2raya07 seem to be the only scientifically honest Assyrians here on wikipedia, others like Assyria 90, Sargonious and Benne have made a mess of many articles just to push their (opposite) political or religious agendas. The ethnic, national and religious mosaic in the post-Ottoman countries is very complex but widely accepted scientific concepts must be used to describe it, while keeping in mind that about every individual seems to have his own home-made identity-kit with or without references from Antiquity or elsewhere. --Pylambert 22:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And lets get this one thing straight, Suroyo/Suraya or Syriac in English is mainly used by diaspora Merotines/Christian Lebanese who refuse to be called arab. The people of the Syriac Ortodox/Catholic in Iraq make up only 5% of the Christians in Iraq (they don't number more then 20,000.) About more then half of these people indeed to call themselfs Ashuri. The rest call themselfs Suraya. But thats 10,000 out of the 1 million Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac population! And of course, the Term Syriac is nowhere to be found in Southern Turkey or Iran. In Syria, some do use it, but a very small minority. So I dont understand how everything here now has become "Syriac"?  And since I haven't addressed the question by benne yet; I dont think I even have too, because obviously this is a joke. Where are you getting all these theories Benne? Aramean? Who in the world calls themselfs aramean? Chaldean 23:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syriacs/Arameans 

message: I think it would be useful to add a specific section about this with all the official available data, including Church statistics. I sincerely doubt there are 5 - 7 Million Assyrians in the world, but it would be more useful to begin with every country before giving a total number. In Armenia there are about 4,000 Assyrians and in Georgia about 6,000, both according to scientific or official sources, but elsewhere ? --Pylambert 11:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good suggestion. I would like to see something like the Italians have done. List the countries and numbers, and in the end the total. 
* Iraq - 750,000 is the number listed on the Iraqi paage
* Syria - It says it has a 10% Christian population ( or 1.8 million,) but more then half of those are arab descent. I read a UN report in 2003 once stating that about 700,000 Christians in Syria belong to some type of Assyrian Church. That number has gone way up since the migration of Assyrians from Iraq to Syria since the war. But lets just put the number at 700,000 for now.
* Lebanon - now it is True that 5,000 Christians of Lebanon do belong to the Assyrian Church. But if we also count the Meronites,  640,000 to 850,00  then we could round it to around 700,000. Its important to note that many Meronite politicians do publicly claim themselfs to be Assyrians as well. - "Prof. Walid Phares of the World Lebanese Cultural Union (WLCU), began his presentation by asking why he as a Lebanese Maronite ought to be speaking on the political future of Assyrians in Iraq. "Simply," he answered, "because we are one people. We believe we are the Western Assyrians and you are the Eastern Assyrians." But lets be serious, when you ask a Meronite his ethnicity, he will reply "Surayne." So Lebanon, should have a aster next to it. 
* Iran - Does not do Ethnic census, but the number that is being kicked around is 15,000 - 20,000
* Turkey - Someone maybe can look this one up. It can't be more then 8,000
* Armenia - 7,000  source - Assyrians of Armenia - 
* Australia - 18,368 - The census 2001 http://www.abs.gov.au/
* New Zealand - 1,200 - 2001Census http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/988C1E07-45FD-4A14-8164-393B5CFDF513/0/EthnicGroups01.pdf (another census will be done this year in March, so the numbers should be much larger soon)
* United States - The last census 6 years ago, revealed 90,000. This number is at minimum tripled by now, since the mass immigration of Iraq to the States. On a side note, the largest Chaldean church opened its doors last month in Detroit. This church has 5 masses every Sunday, each mass has 1,500 people attending. And this is only one of 7 Chaldean churches in Detroit area. So you can only imagine how big of a population of Assyrians is these days in the States. It should read 90,000 (2000 census - link to census) and underneath it 250,000 (estimates)
Gotta go for now, please anyone, kindly help out :)Chaldean 17:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't get me wrong. I do agree you on the Meronites. They don't consider themselfs as Assyrians, but I was just saying that in reality they could possibly well be descents of Assyrians. Nevertheless, they should not be counted.  Chaldean 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a new talk page on this subject, as this one is already quite long: Talk:Assyrian people/Statistics. --Pylambert 19:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population numbers 

message: Put it back. Please. I'm asking nicely.
:It doesn't have its place here but in Assyrian independence, here it is an article over an ethnic group (or rather a meta-ethnic group), not over Assyrianism nor over plans for an Assyrian state. --Pylambert 21:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The flag needs to be removed. Guys we have to be constant with the rest of wiki. Look at any other ethnic page: German people, Greek people, Polish - no ethnic page has a flag. They have 4-5 historic people of that ethnicity. I have been thinking of doing such thing with the Assyrian page as well. So the Assyrian flag needs to be removed. Chaldean 00:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who removed the flag? 

message: That is the difference between Aramaic and Syriac. Akkadian is also referred to as the old Assyro-Babylonian Language. Sumerian language affected Akkadian language as it affected Aramaic.
:Well, this simply is not true. Akkadian was influenced somewhat by Sumerian. For centuries, Imperial Aramaic and Akkadian were in a sybiotic relationship: late Babylonian was influenced by Aramaic, and Aramaic contained a few Babylonian loanwords (argwānā 'purple', parzel 'iron', šêziv 'to save', zîw 'features'). However, Akkadian belongs to a distinct stream of development of Semitic languages (e.g. Akkadian has no ayin). Assyrian Suret has no more Akkadian influence than any other Aramaic language. Standard Assyrian is based around the colloquial dialect of Urmia (Urmežnaya) with heavy influence from the classical dialect of Edessa (Orhaya). --Gareth Hughes 22:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assyrian Aramaic (Syriac) contains a heavy Akkadian Lexicon 

message: I removed Arabic and Persian (Farsi) from the language box because a) those languages are not native to Assyrians, b) virtually no Assyrians speak Arabic or Persian as a first language, and c) if you're going to add languages to the list based solely on members who speak it, then English would be the primary non-native language spoken. --3345345335534 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling the Persian language Farsi would be like referring to German as Deutsch ... --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic and Farsi as spoken languages 

message: Why is this article nominated biased? What baised about it? Chaldean 00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think it's too bad. I wouldn't mind the removal of the banner from the top. --Gareth Hughes 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased?

message: Actually, I wonder what's the use of it: have a look at the Arab, Sephardi Jews, Berber people, Kurdish people, Armenians or Greeks articles, sometimes the linguistic proximity is used, sometimes something else, there's no rule. I guess that's enough to say "other groups who speak Semitic languages", but even that is not really accurate for an ethnic group. --Pylambert 01:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related ethnic groups 

message: I really believe it would be wise first to put together all official statistics on the Talk:Assyrian people/Statistics before adding totally inaccurate statistics in the article. For instance, how is it possible that the Annuario Pontifico stated in 1982 that there were 351,000 Catholics of all denominations in Iraq and a 1987 census (where is it comprehensively available, not just through indirect quotations) would give a number as high as 1.4 million Christians in Iraq ? There are too many discrepancies, let's first add all official data, then it'll be possible to give a "fork number". --Pylambert 17:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. There is far too much reason for certain organisations to want to inflate figures that we should be wary quoting them. --Gareth Hughes 17:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, but the UN regufee in last December reported that at least 500,000 Christians of Iraq are asking for tempurary assylum in Syria Chaldean 18:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, Sargon aka Sargonious (proof here), stop writing on this page without signing and stop using an IP identity 12.15.7.70 to hide yourself. Besides, there's a special page about statistics, Talk:Assyrian people/Statistics, so stop trying to insert statistics coming from nowhere (like from the UNPO, how did they count Assyrians ?) and try to make this article better by adding valuable statistics (from censuses or scientific estimates or even official church estimates) on the page Talk:Assyrian people/Statistics. --Pylambert 01:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: I declare this the first vicotry for Assyria since the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC. First Wikipedia, next Iraq! King Legit
:A small battle provisionally won against obscurantism and bigotry, that's already enough for me, no use trying to recycle this into a nationalist victory of any kind. The purpose was to stick to scientific standards and prevent students and other lay users of wikipedia to read various biased and inaccurate articles on Assyrian-related subjects. Pylambert 22:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I urge you to change your tone, Pylambert. Your judgements and personal attacks are a disgrace to Wikipedia. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People like you, who are not able to sustain any of your "Syriacs" nonsense by scientific references, ought to go back to your studies. The presence of your likes is a disgrace to wikipedia. Your only purpose was to impose the "Syriacs" ethnonym, you never added anything useful on these articles, so keep a lower tone, more befitting the level of your "contributions". --Pylambert 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please Pylambert, no personal attacks. Do you get pleasure out of insulting others? --Khoikhoi 00:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victory 

message: In Syriac when you say: Ana Suray ewin. It means I am a Christian. It started as a synonym for Christian durring the days of early Christianity when the old Assyro-Babylonian Religion was still in practice. The term Aramaya meant you were a pagan, Suraya on the other hand meant you were Christian. If you, a Syriac speaking Christian were to refer to yourself as an Aramean it would mean you are pagan; as far as I know there are no living members that follow the old gods. The term Syriac was used by the Greeks to refer to Arameans whom at the time were pagan and a part of the Assyrian Nation. There never has been an independant Aramean nation. It was the Assyrains that first institued Aramaic as an official language of any nation. The name Assyria is derived from the name of the Sky God...
: "In Syriac when you say: Ana Suray ewin. It means I am a Christian - this is what I was trying to explain to Garzo in the Syriac page.  Chaldean 06:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arameans 

message: Ignorance is what caused all this. The Assyrian Dark Ages between the Islamic conquest of Mesopotamia up until the early 20th century.
I've said this before.
Syriac is the language. eg English (There is no language called Canadian or American)
Assyrian Church of the East/Chaldean Church of Babylon,  Syriac Orthodox/Catholic are Religions. eg Roman Catholics (They're not actually Roman although they may have some Roman anscestory.)
Assyria is the Nation. eg Canada (They don't call themselves North Americans.)
Assyrian is the Nationality. eg Canadian or American (They aren't English.)
Beth Nahrain is a geographic region (Mesopotamia). eg Siberia or Appalachia
The branch of Studies that deals with the ancient Near East is called Assyriology, not Syriology, not Arameology, nor Chaldeology. However there is no way to prove lineage. No one knows exactly what their anscestors were doing 100 years ago let alone 1000-10000 years ago. Intermixing happens, people aren't different from animals when it comes to instinct and mating isn't discriminatory. I'm very sure that people mixed. Durring the golden age of Syriac Christianity when most of the Middle East was Christian; Persians mixed with Assyrians and other Christians, Arabs mixed, There were Christian Arabs too, the Ghassanids. At first the Mongolian invaders embraced Christianity, etc.
There is no proving 100% lineage of any race. However the most appropriate term is what applies in which for this case is Assyrian. Yes Assyrians may have Aramean blood, Chaldean blood, Sumerian blood, maybe even Arab (Ghassanid) or Persian. The other names aren't befitting because the Arab and Persian nations are already established and are different cultures altogether. The terms Aramean and Chaldean were mainly exonyms given by other people primarily the Greeks and Romans. The Roman empire had a province called Assyria by the way. The old Assyrian language is Akkadian and the Neo-Assyrian language is Aramaic. That doesn't make us Akkadian or Aramean just as much that the English language doesn't make a Canadian or American English.
King Legit
The Assyrian name can be traced back to the name Ashur which was derived from the Sumerian Anshar who was the Sky god and later the supreme Assyrian god. Ansharru, Ashurru, or Sharru meant of royal/holy lineage. eg Sharru Kinnu, the True King whom I'm named after Sargon. Therefore the terms Assyrian, Syrian, Syriac are all derivatives of the title of Sargon. The first King of Akkad and Sumer aka the King of Babylonia. The King of Assyria.King Legit
:Yup, that pretty much shows it. — Gareth Hughes 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignorance. 

message: I feel that the following should be moved to the language section, and any duplication cut.
Currently it is in the identity section
"Among linguists, supporters of the term "Assyrian" (such as Edward Odisho The sound system of Modern Assyrian Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz 1988) admit that linguistically the term is misleading, because in linguistics the name "Assyrian" is reserved for the extinct language of ancient Assyrians, while the modern Aramaic dialects belong to a different branch. He further argues that ancient Assyrians could be among the ancestors of modern Arameans in Iraq.
Assyrians are divided among several churches (see below). They read and write various dialects of neo-Aramaic, a Semitic language which in the form of Syriac is used in their religious observances."
Agathoclea 11:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already just put the references under adequate brackets, so that they appear at the bottom of the page. The whole article needs to be cleaned up, with more references (there are already 13) and a statistics section. And it needs to stay under constant scrutiny, otherwise it'll become messy again (some, on their talk page, have already expressed their intention to change everything "as soon as Pylambert and Chaldean will be away"). I'm sure it is possible to make it a good article, as well as related ones (Assyrians in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Assyrian diaspora). And I agree with your proposal that Assyrians should work on the German-Austrian articles and vice versa, maybe they would find some interesting new angles of reflexion. --Pylambert 15:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed move and cut 

message: I (re?)added the POV tag. Sentences like "Because the indigenous word in both dialects for the people themselves and for the language is "Suryoyo" or "Suryaye," some take the facile route of equating these terms with Syriac or Syrian without realizing that the terms Assyrian and Syrian are the same in origin." are disputed. It refers to but one of the various theories about the origin of the name "Syria". --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term Assyrian is older then Syrian Garzo..can we get that straight? The term Assyrian never faded way, and was always used in every part of history since the creation of the ancient empire. Just look in all historic maps; where do you see a "Syriac"? You only see Assyria. Chaldean 02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Assyrian is older Syrian, but your argument is full of misunderstandings. In the sentence above, I mentioned nothing about Assyria. However, King Legit is completely wrong to suggest that the Syriac Orthodox previously refered to themselves as Assyrian Orthodox: it's just untrue. All of these words are ancient, and it would be difficult to tell which is the older. However, a lot of the connotations of these different labels have changed significantly over time, and their modern ethno-nationalistic use began during the decline of the Ottoman Empire. For that reason the historic importance of millet and umta should be taken into account. This 'you don't see Syriac on a map' statement is nonsense: you see Syria on maps (Syriac and Syrian are adjectives). In the Books of the Maccabees, the Jews speaking Aramaic are said, in Greek, to be speaking η γλωσσα συριακη (which, if you can't read Greek, is: hē glōssa syriakē, the Syriac tongue). Now, I would always translate that as Aramaic language, as it fits better with modern nomenclature, but it shows that Greeks were calling Aram Syria and Aramaic Syriac before the rise of Christianity. At some early stage of Chrstian development, Aramaic-speaking Christians chose the Greek name Syriac in preference to the older name Aramaean/Aramaic. Now, it is highly likely that the Greek word comes from the Akkadian word Aššur, which gives us Assyria. However, Syria was applied to lands west of Mesopotamia and corresponded with the native Aram. This kind of historical overview seems to be lacking from most of the arguments I see being made on this page, most of which seem to come from Sunday-School learning. --Gareth Hughes 12:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No need to take personal shots like that in the end, but I agreed with most of your reply. I was just trying to say one thing in my previous statement; the word 'Assyria' never faded away in time. There is no period between 612BC up until now, the word Assyria was not visible in the region where most Assyrians are concentrated in today. Chaldean 14:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The indegenous word for CHRISTIAN is Suraya for the ethnicity it is Aturaya. Some say Kaldaya Aturaya for Chaldean Assyrian.
:12.15.7.70, please GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER and log in. The literal meaning of Suryaya (classically spelled with two 'yodhin') is Syriac, and Aturaya is Assyrian. Any other meaning is subsequent to these basic meanings. So, before you start telling people to stop it: log in, learn learn classical Syriac, and get a good Syriac dictionary. Please, recognise that being Assyrian does not make you an expert. --Gareth Hughes 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few speakers of Kthobonoyo who speak it as their first language. Most of them would have spoken the Tur `Abdin or Hakkari dialects, but the exodus to Jazira has brought about their use of the classical language as their first language. Again, Suryaya means Syriac or Syrian. The fact that it connotes Christian is secondary (this meaning isn't even mentioned in Payne Smith). The correct word in Syriac is Mashikhaya. --Gareth Hughes 23:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benne, please stop it. 

message: I dont know who removed it, but I would like to know why was it removed? Why isn't it appropeate on this page? Chaldean 15:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syriac Christianity Template