Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 8

message: The image :Image:Assyrian Church of the East Symbol.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:File:Assyrian Church of the East Symbol.JPG
*:      Image:Chaldean.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Assyrian Church of the East Symbol.JPG

message: I removed the beginning paragraph in the Self-designation section, as it makes ignorant POV claims. If it is to remain in the article, it needs some re-wording, because it's somewhat derogatory and ignorant. For example: "All of these identities are indebted to the discovery of ancient Babylonia and Assyria and the decipherment of cuneiform that took place during 19th century , and the rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire that occurred during the same period.This is contradicted by the fact that, although somewhat scarce and dispersed across time, references to Assyrian and Aramaean identities have been attested to over the past 2,000 years. Also, the claims of this paragraph contradict the rest of the section, which suggests continuity of the Assyrian identity from ancient times to present day. WestAssyrian reverted my edits, claiming that this paragraph simply lists the different Assyrian denominations. If that were true, there would be no problem. However, this paragraph makes the suggestion that the Assyrian identities were "made-up", owing only to the decipherment of cuneiform and the efforts of Assyriology.It is fair to suggest that the modern revival of the various Assyrian identities were influenced by Assyriology and the "rise of nationalism under the Ottoman empire", however that is already addressed in the Names of Syriac Christians article. I would like to see others' opinions on this matter. Šarukinu (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that last bit should also be removed. --Šarukinu (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Its ok to summarize what point of view from both Assyrians and Syriacs in this page and the Syriac people page. The single sentence Triz pointed out is only summary of the Assyrian's view. In the Syriac Identity page, we can be more detailed about the subject. Chaldean (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the average layperson, who doesn't have a clue about the Assyrian people, is going to get confused with all these terms we're using. Also, with respect to "Suryaye": it is simply a synonym of "Suraye", which is the term that the majority of Assyrians use to refer to their ethnicity in the Assyrian language. However, when you ask them to translate it into English, they will most often tell you Suraya means Assyrian. Thirdly, the phrase that Triz pointed out starts off with "Western Syriacs" - who exactly does that refer to? Those who Assyrians call "Western Assyrians" or the Western branch of members of the Syriac Orthodox Church? It needs to be more specific, and it needs to fit into the section smoothly, not just be tossed at the end. --Šarukinu (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-designation

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

message: --Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Triz, it goes to show how little you know. Syriacs comes from the Greek corruption, "Syria". Theres ample sourcesin this article showing how the Greeks called the Syrians the Assyrians interchangeably. Later on, some of us adopted the name "Suraya" in a dark time in which we forgot ourselves due to Greek labellage. Aramaens are not the same as Syrians - how does one even get to such an absurd jump? Gabr-el 19:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: Can all assyrian fanatics please stop editing aramean-syriac artciles, since none of your edits are good edits. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe how lazy some "neutral" editors are in trying to keep a peace. No, we will not leave your pag alone, because it is nonesense and it is my duty as a wikipedian to correct it. Not one of your sources says anything about Aramaen Syriacs Gabr-el 15:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Helikophis, what on earth are you babling about? We have three Greek historians and another article http://www.aina.org/articles/ttaasa.pdf here proving our point that Syria is Assyria. Gabr-el 15:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aina as source? You are kidding me right AramaeanSyriac (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

text: Hi Malik, Yes, that is the kind of explicit statement that is an appropriate source for this addition!  I can't comment on the reliability of the Iranian source as I can't really find any info on them on the web, but if you are confident that they are, I won't argue it.  I can't oppose the change on the grounds of original research with those sources.  Note that I still don't feel it's the best addition on the grounds that I think it perpetuates confusion, but I will no longer oppose the change.  Thank you for providing appropriate sources!
Helikophis (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough

message: There have been recent deletions to this page and there has been no concensus on why those changes occurred. There wasn't even a discussion as to why those deletions took place. I will put what was there before until there is a discussion discussing why the deletion occurred.
Man Wikipedia has become even more of a joke then it has ever been (and it was a laughing stock). Any outlet which lets anyone edit information is bound to be extremely unreliable. Any 12 year old with no educational background can now adays bring fiction to reality in Wikipedia ... which is what has happened in this website. Malik Danno (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: we're working on it. Wikipedia has rules. The "Assyrian" topics are plagued by some editors who are particularly stubborn about ignoring the rules, but we are getting there.   Wikipedia is free, but not free-for-all.  --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dab you've been creating much controvirsy by trying to unite all these group under one name. Wikipedia is not the page for this, and you know this. We have Assyrians. We have those who don't identify as Assyrian, and dont identify with the entire group as one, thus we have Syriac people and Chaldean Christian pages. If you want to establish what is the most common name in English for the group, generally, thats fine, but don't do it half-way. Do it in a complete method, where you use all of the suggestion Wikipedia gives. And don't just write it in a talk page where it gets archieved. Instead do it in the talk forum we created, where everytime we get a troll or someone challanging what is the most common name, then we can easily refer him to our research. Iraqi (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Right now the numbers are pretty ridiculous. 05 - 5.3 million? Gabr-el 03:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but without references khon, thats all it will be. We need references that are credible, ones that won't give a wide figure from 500,000 to 5,000,000. Gabr-el 05:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: The "Assyrian people" didn't exist before the 19th century.
:Note on the Modern "Assyrians"
:Pseudo-Nation of "Assyrians"
:Informationen über die Pseudo-Assyrer (contains English links)
:Who are the Christians of Iraq?
:HD86 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Patriarch Afrem Barsaum made a profound research to the identity of the Syrian Church of Antioch. A part of the conclusion in his book (see above photo) about the name of the "Assyrians" is: The "Assyrian" name is the English Protestant invention going back to 1900 A.D. It was bequeathed to the Nestorians in the regions of Mosul 1919-1920 A.D. for a malicious, political purpose, so that the English politicians might create for themselves out of the Nestorian youth a militia they named "Assyrian" aiming at the realisation of their political plan in Iraq, a plan which failed in 1933 and resulted in the exile of the Katholikos of the Nestorians and his exile from the country with his followers, the result being that all the nations refused to permit his return to the near East.
In conclusion, the Syrians have no interest whatsoever in taking to themselves this strange name which will make them lose their race, their ecclesiastical support which is their unique and sole means of existence in the world. No wise man would of his own free will agree to change the name of his race, his community of his church, all of which had lasted two thousand years.
The conclusion of Afrem Barsauwm is beyond any doubt! The term "Assyrian" is just an invention of the English missionaries and others, who on the basis of their observations, gave this name to the East-Arameans of Mesopotamia, namely the Nestorains and the Chaldeans See for more detailed information about the propaganda of the English and the French men regarding the term "Assyrian" the article "The destruction of the Assyrians in the year 612 B.C… by the Chaldeans and Medians" . Afrem Barsauwm is formidable and very clear in his conclusion. What is the reason for this very clear and unmistakable conclusion? If we read his book, the attention is immediately attracted by the fact that he had studied all the books of the Church fathers and scholars of the Syrian Church of Antioch. From the book you can gather that he wrote it very dedicated, with great passion and precision. This means that it has cost him a lot of effort to make this remarkable and very deeply research. His conclusion is based on two very strong and solid pillars, namely: 
On the Holy Book the Bible. 
On the books of the church fathers and scholars of the Syrian Church of Antioch up to 14e century. 
These two fundaments are so incredible strong and solid that they can withstand every attack of those who want to falsify the history of the Arameans of Mesopotamia, that means the West-Arameans and the East-Arameans.
HD86 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

text: 19th Century (1842- 1915) The creation of ,,Assyrians”
Those among the east-Aramean “Nestorians” who did not embrace the Catholicism remained faithful to the East-Syrian “Nestorian” Church until 19th century. In the late 19th century, we see a similar thing happening, following the example of the Catholic missionaries, “of dividing and ruling”. This time, being carried out by the Anglican missionaries, with the remaining part of the East-Syrian “Nestorians” of Hakkaria (bordering Turkey - Iraq) and Urmia (Iran), who were wrongfully identified as “Assyrians”; purely geographical and only applied to the “Nestorians”. The East-Aramean “Nestorians” prefer, since then, to call themselves “Assyrians” and try, by all means possible, to force this term onto other Aramean denominations by spreading plenty of biased information regarding the origin of our people and our language.
They also started to distort historical facts. For example: Aramaic language; they changed in “Assyrian” language; Aramean people in “Assyrian” people. Saint Ephraim the Syrian; became “saint Ephrem the Assyrian[6]”; Syrian Church became “Assyrian Church”. In this way they try by all means possible to falsify our history and our sacred language. Regarding the behavior of the western missionaries; a profound research has been made by Professor John Joseph who says,, In 1905 a congregation left the Russian Church to join the United Lutheran Church of America, which maintained a few Nestorian priests under supervision of the American missionary. Other western- supported congregations began to proliferate early in the twentieth century. A Sweedish- American “Augustuna Synode” employed a Nestorian priest who conducted two day-schools. The Evangelican Association for Advancement of the Nestorian Church, founded at Berlin in 1906, employed a Nestorian priest who had Lutheran training in Germany. For about 10 years a German Orient Mission maintained an orphanage outside Urmiyah for Nestorian refugees from mountains. The English Plymouth Brethren employed a few priests in a mission of their own. Other smaller missions were connected with the American Dunkards, the Holiness Methodists, the American Southern Baptists and Northern Baptists, and the English Congregationalists. There was perhaps no missionary field in the world where there were so many rival “Christian” forces at work as were found in urmiya at the beginning of this century; all struggling to get predominance among these few people[7].
HD86 (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalistic POV 

message: I have applied semi-protection to the article for a period of three days.  Only Wikipedia editors with accounts can edit the article for the next three days, though the talk page is open.
I urge the anonymous IP editors to engage in a constructive discussion on your points here on the talk page, and not restart the edit war when the semi-protection ends this weekend.
Thank you.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is semi-protected for three days 

message: Leave at present title. 
#I first prefer the title Assyrian People (as it is the ethnic gourp) second i favour Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people (although 2 of the 3 are not ethnic groups). [I]  don't agree at all [with Assyrian/Syriac], because Assyrian is an ethnicity while Syriac is a language and a religious renomination Syriac can be ethnically divided into those who claim they are Assyrian (ethnicity) and Armaeans (ethnicity) but Syriac is not an ethnicity. The second point is that If you are willing to accept that name what about Chaldeans ... the name cannot be Assyrian/Syriac people and avoid Chaldeans. Malik Danno (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the point is that the move to an unambiguous title will finally rid us of these constant misunderstandings. I for one am tired that in English, "Assyrian people" is not necessarily an endorsement of "Assyrianism". This is correct, but it still means we get complaints every other week. The Swedish and US governments have opted for a compromise designation in order to prevent exactly that. we should do the same. --dab (𒁳) 07:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Assyrian people"

message: move to either Assyrian/Syriac people or Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people (a politically correct "slashed" designation as used in the US and Swedish censuses)
#most neutral, most up-to-date. --dab (𒁳) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Assyrian/Syriac people"

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

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

message: *Oxford Dictionary NO MENTION of modern Assyrians
*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language NO MENTION of modern Assyrians
*Collins Essential English Dictionary NO MENTION of modern Assyrians
*Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary NO MENTION of modern Assyrians
*Encarta® World English Dictionary NO MENTION of modern Assyrians
*Babylon NO MENTION of modern Assyrians
*Wiktionary NO MENTION of modern Assyrians  
HD86 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Assyrian" in English dictionaries

message: *The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, mentioned under "Assyrian Church":
::A name used since the 19th cent. for the Church of the East. It became popular especially in Anglican circles as a way of avoiding the name Nestorian, which was disliked by the Syrians themselves and appeared to prejudge their orthodoxy.
*The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, mentioned under "Assyrian Christians":
::A name adopted in modern times by members of the Church of the East (q.v.) who claim descent from the ancient Assyrians.
*Britannica Concise Encyclopedia 
:No mention under Assyria(n), mentioned under the "Eastern rite church" apparently with no mention of the fact that they are called "Assyrian" at all.
*Microsoft Encarta
:No mention under Assyria(n), under "Nestorian Church":
::Most Nestorians, numbering about 176,700, live in Iraq, Syria, and Iran, where they are generally known as Assyrians.
*The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, mentioend under "Assyrian Church" which redirects to Nestorian Church where they are mentioned one time:
::It represents the ancient church of Persia and is sometimes called the Assyrian (or East Syrian) Church.
*Catholic Encyclopedia, mentioned under the "East Syrian Rite":
::In recent times they have been called, chiefly by the Anglicans, the "Assyrian Church", a name which can be defended on archaeological grounds.
*Blackwell Reference Online, Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe:
::The Assyrians (also known as Syrians and, disparagingly in Tsarist Russia, as Ayssorians) refer to themselves as Aturai, Surai, or Kaldai (? = ‘Chaldeans’). They are descended from the Aramaeans (see *Aramaic) and speak a *Semitic language which derives from the dialect of classical Aramaic universally known as Syriac
*American Encyclopedia, not mentioned under "Assyrians"
CONCLUSIONS:
*The Syriac Christians are described as "a nation" only by the Wikipedia's current idiosyncratic article. Syriac Christianity is a church, there is nothing called the "Syriac people" much as there is no Catholic people.
*The different Syriac ethnicities are not collectively called "Assyrian" anywhere. In fact, the Christians of Iraq themselves were not called so until recently. To describe all the Syriac minorities in the Middle East as an "Assyrian people" is inappropriate. HD86 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you there: Syriac Christianity is not a nation and there is no such thing as a Syriac people. I agree also with the fact that all the Syriac minorities aren't "Assyrians". Us calling ourselves "Assyrian" (for the most part) until recently does not mean we aren't assyrians! Malik Danno (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern "Assyrians" in English encyclopedias

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

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

message: The flags in the identity section are very confusing. You have the Assyrian flag tagged as "the assyrian flag" the Caldean flag as "Chaldean flag" and the Syriac flag as "Syriac Flag" now ... this will cause confusion as people will see this and assume that the Assyrian flag is meant to represent only those who are members of the Nestorian Church and those who are members of the SYriac/Chaldean churches are not represented by the Assyrian Flag. That is incorrect ... When the Assyrian flag was created it was created for all Assyrians even those under the Chaldean/Syriac churches. To this day the Assyrian flag represents Nestorians, Chaldeans and Syriacs ... having it tagged as the "Assyrian Flag" while the two under it are "Syriac Flag" and "Chaldean Flag" will just make it seem like the Assyrian flag doesn't represent the syriacs and Chaldeans which is NOT TRUE. Malik Danno (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bla bla bla, cry me a river. The Assyrian flag represents those who call themselves Assyrians, no one else. I can create a flag that I say represents all countries in the world, does that make it the flag of the world? The TriZ (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Would User:Gabr-el mind explaining their reasons why the removal of  was reverted? Afraid the remark "Oh boy. Thank you!" left in their edit summary is not all that helpful.
In case the reason for the category's removal is not clear from the text of my original edit summary, the descriptions appearing in the indigenous peoples article and related categories themselves, or the extensive body of literature on the topic, I'll summarise:
*in addition to the generic everyday meanings of the word indigenous, there exists a contemporary term and concept "indigenous peoples" widely seen and used in national/international scholarship, law, politics, and organisational discourse (both governmental and NGOs)
*this concept has in practice a specific (if at times hard to pin down) usage, that differs from the everyday one(s)
*the indigenous peoples category scheme is intended to follow/be used for this specific concept, per its main article and related others
*in particular, the sense of "indigenous peoples" intended for the cat does not (merely) refer to any given people or group originating from some given area, or who've had a long association with an area, or who might be considered 'first inhabitants' of an area
*nor does it refer (in general) to any given people or group who who may be considered an ethnic, linguistic, religious or politically marginalised minority in some territory (although generally speaking indigenous ppls are one or more of those)
*for the present case, it does not appear that "Assyrian people" are notably/consistently discussed, represented, legislated for, self-identified, or otherwise mentioned as an "indigenous people" (in the specific sense) by organisations, govts, scholars and fora that usually deal with indigenous peoples' rights and concerns
*Hence, categorisation as such seems unwarranted here.
It may be that there are significant mentions of "Assyrian people" out there by recognised orgs such as UNPFII or IWGIA, where the identification/claim is made. Happy to reconsider the point if such mentions can be found; but otherwise, my proposal is to remove that category.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the category my friend. We cannot agree who or what the Syriacs/Assyrians are, but we can at least say that we are a Semitic people, and Semitic peoples are on the category!!Gabr-el 05:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous ppls category 

message: * Assyrian people to Assyrian and Neo-Aramaic people
*   Assyrian and Neo-Aramaic people to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people
Everyone keeping up? Anyone want to fix the archive links of this talk page, or isn't there a lot of point? Hang in there! Andrewa (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of what you are saying but after "Assyrian/Syriac" is fine too, and no, "Assyrian/Syriac" is not "ignoring the Chaldeans", since the Chaldeans are a subset of the Assyrian/Syriac people. that's when you are wrong. It seems to me that you still don't know what the term Syriac means in this case! Sure, it means Syriac Christians (nestorians, chaldeans, malakites, mayanalas, etc.) but that's not what it means in this sense!! Let me ask you this before we go any further ... in the case of "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" what is 'Assyrian' 'Chaldean' and 'Syriac'. because your metaphore of equating Syriacs to US citizzens while Chaldeans being Texans is very very wrong. Malik Danno (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Most recent moves

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

message: Your sources are not stating what you want to be put in the article. They say one thing and you are saying another! Discuss your point here before vandalizing the page more. Malik Danno (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User: HD86 

message: Briefly (3 sentences max, please), will all parties explain what's going on here? I have read the above dialogue, but it's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff at this point. Please keep the summaries focused on the problems of the article notwithstanding who edits it. Thank you! :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to go this route for the time being - I understand your concerns; if need be, I can relocate the discussion to another page (at medcab, most likely). In the meantime, I recommend with a quick summary (throw in all your NPOVs, Vs, general issues; just try to be candid with each other is all I ask) So if it's alright for you,  I want to see how far I can get on brass tacks, if you know what I mean :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I have asked you HD86 to refrain from deleting sourced information, and to write words in the edit summary so that we won't be removing such sources. Gabr-el 21:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No no, in general I mean. Gabr-el 22:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Point taken :-) I'll get to you on talk (IRC? Skype?) Xavexgoem (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the cabal swoops in! 

message: I am sick and tired of Dab removing every source, aramaen or assyrian. HD86, Triz and Aramaen-Syriac should have their Syriac page back, if they have references. And it looks like they do or else we won't have this horrendous title. And we should have our Assyrian page back as well. 
I want no more of this bigotted denial that I get from HD86 and no more reverting and removing. Dab, you're an admin, and you've spent well over a year on this page and its only gotten worse. Gabr-el 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And who are you sir, to come so late into this discussion, and mock my thread? You have not seen the madness that has occurred in this article. Jesus said that a man shall be at war with members of his own household... this talk page has lived by that verse. My argument, since it is not clear to you, is that we should split it back again because it kept everyone from biting everyone's head off. Gabr-el 22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moi? Oh, I've been following this for a while. It's very entertaining, albeit rather silly. However, it's fairly clear where we go from here: this article stays in one place, with no more content forks, and Wikipedia:Summary style is brought into place to cut down the bloated "cultural" section (that is, start a new article for this and leave a summary in place here). That can probably be done in a few other places as well: plus, we do not stick in "but they should be called this!" material that belongs, if anywhere, at Names of Syriac Christians (and arguably it's offtopic even there). Moreschi (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks Dad (Moreschi). Now Dab, I don't understand you here. You are saying "they" do not have references. I don't know to what faction you are referring to, but here is the bottom line:
</br>
1) Either references do exist, and we should split the articles.
</br> 
2) Or references do not exist, and we should have one article and one name. 
</b>
Gabr-el 22:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shrug. Ugly it may be. But at least it has some basis in sourcing. Unlike other alternatives, such as "Aramean-Syriac", which doesn't even have any google presence. I don't think anyone here is too hung up on the actual title: it just needs to be grounded in reality. The important thing is one article for one ethnic group. Moreschi (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

message: It is clear that ArameanSyriac has vandalized 3/4 of the page, yet his 'contributions' are still around! Why haven't his vandalism been deleted or fixed yet? If by tomorrow they are not fixed, I will do it myself, and I would not want to do that because then I will be accused myself. Please someone delete the ridiculous claims of his (Syriac Orthodox are 4 000 000 etc). Malik Danno (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot see a 4 million figure anywhere. Gabr-el 19:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Fix and delete them, but be prepared to defend them (and I will defend them if I can). Dab and Moreschi, I know you are busy admins, but you guys can revert whatever edits you think are not appropriate later. Gabr-el 21:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: You make no sense Malik, just keep out and things will work themselves out. There are alot of fixing to do, but it has to be done by neutral editors. The TriZ (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what Gabr-el I will do it. The TriZ, you fail to realize this is Wikipedia, anyone can change anything they want (that's what makes it so flawd). You have been here defending User:ArameanSyriac's "contributions" but you dont want me to edit the page ... BIAS MUCH!! Also it has been 5 days and things have not fixed themselves ... so that point of yours is wrong. P.S. I am neutral ... you its just that you are too bias to see that. Malik Danno (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I edited up until Religion, I realized that he has ALOT of "contribution" to this page and it will take a while for anyone to change all his "contributions". Gabr-el if its not too much trouble can you help with contributing with ArameanSyriacs "contributions" Malik Danno (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And you asked for my age and my academical status? Are you serious? I have hard to even believe English is your first language. Gabr-el, apart from you, has a sharp intellect and won't be doing edits like yours. The TriZ (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Triz, whilst I appreciate your strong allegiance to the Syriac Orthodox Church, it was not nice to say that Malik does not have a sharp intellect, and I respect him. I also respect you. But look at the difference between his and your edits:
1) You state that most Syriacs belong to the Syriac Orthodox Church, a POV that you cannot support. Malik's edits make no such POV.
2) You state that the Syriac Orthodox Church has 4 million members. This number seems to include people of Indian ethnicity who adhere to this Rite. Well then this information MUST be thorougly reviewed, so as to state what the ethnic Syriacs adherence is, not total adherents to the Syriac Orthodox Church. How ridiculous would it be if I cited the Catholic Church's 1 billion Christians to say that Chaldeans are 1 billion strong?
I have made some temporary edits, and they're temporary because I hope to edit it later. Gabr-el 01:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: * Gabr-el 07:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that as well. Gabr-el 17:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe most people agrees that it's basically the same people, only that groups within the people call themselves different names. So the people is kind of split in three camps, the Syriacs, the Assyrians and the Chaldeans. You can read more at Names of Syriac Christians. The TriZ (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment on the possibility of creating two separate articles. Having separate articles for the same people as in the past has caused more problems than solutions. The original article entitled Aramaean-Syriac page got deleted on the grounds that it was a fork. A similar thing will likely happen again if the decision is made to create two separate articles. Therefore I would like to respectfully comment that this page should be named just Assyrian/Syriac People instead of the current name which is very awful to the ears. By not putting chaldean in the title, that does not mean we are being prejudice, we can just mention that the Assyrian/Syriac people are also known as Chaldean, syriacs, etc. We have already successfully established the naming dispute within the article page so those who are further interested may dig in deeper into other adjacent articles. Creating two articles will likely result in one getting deleted as done in the past therefore why do we not just keep it at Assyrian/Syriac for now to see what happens next. I have voiced my opinions above but I am willing to change it to the double term if for whatever reason the final decision is to be made to create two separate articles instead of keeping it to one. This is my humble opinion. Ninevite (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

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