Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 3

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

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

message: Check out the article. ---> Nahrainean
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 07:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nahrainean (Nahraya) 

message: Strong OpposeMr Hughs; with all due respect, you are neither a member of this commuinty nor a scholar of such identity issues. Furthermore, as a so-called "west-syrian" Assyrian I am appalled at your appellations issue. The facts are simple and are not to be discredited. I refer you to Simo Parpola (scholar of Assyriology) for a discussion of the modern Assyrian heritage. Furthermore, the term Syriac-speaking Christian is ridicultous in that the modern language of these people is in fact not so-called classical Syriac. Secondly....calling someone a Syriac is grammatically incorrect. Syriac comes from the Latin Syriacus...It is a western word and concept for an Eastern people. Thirdly...it is an adjective refering to a church based liturgical language. Not a noun.
It continues to amuse me that even in cyberspace Baathism, Kurdification, and Anti-Assyrianism can run rampant and an Englishman is the one who is in charge of editing a page on a people who are quite capable of explaining themselves in their own terms. 
The ethnic designation is Assyrian...add all the other names as religious titles only. You would only find Assyrians as members of all the above mentioned church communities. There are no Chaldean "West Syrians"...no West Syrian Chaldeans....no Nestorian Chaldeans....and no Nestorian Arameans...its simple logic...lets use it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Branchala (talk • contribs) 07:32, 16 May 2006.
:::There is nothing like kurdification. Jalalarbil 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Branchala, I see that you are a new user who has contributed nothing except to talk pages on this article. You are perhaps then a sockpuppet or someone enrolled from a forum outside of Wikipedia. Your first sentence presumes to know me, which is rather insulting from someone who remains anonymous. I oppose an Assyrian whitewash because there are a large number of West Syriacs who do not wish to be called Assyrian. To include them under the label Assyrian or to exclude them from their heritage is an insult. I know Aramaic, and a number of modern and classical dialects. I have also read historical texts on the issues of identification. I am asking th community to recognise that a substantial proportion of the people have never used the identity Assyrian to this day. — Gareth Hughes 18:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the title is original research?? Jalalarbil 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course I don't. I am saying that this narrow title excludes a large proportion of the people, who, historically, have never used it of themselves. I'm saying that it's biased. — Gareth Hughes 18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why dont you work on the Kurdish people and say how they are... 

message: If its not broken why fix it? ‘Assyrian People’ is the correct Heading and should not be moved or attacked in this way, Assyrian is a name of national identity that should be respected. After all they have enough enemies already I don’t think they need more? 
No Assyrians attack the national existence of any nationality why you should attack the Assyrian identity? 
It is easy to tell Who are the Modern Assyrians, first you should read more, secondly DNA, oh, Yes (Genetic) DNA is and has proven the exactness of Modern Assyrian as a separate Homogenise group that is different and not related to any of the Middle Eastern groups. That is science for you people Science.Ashurbanipal23 08:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Srong Oppose

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

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

message: Please do not believe or cite the information about Chaldeans in this article as truth. This website is clearly biased and shouldn't be trusted as a source of knowledge about the Chaldean Ethnicity. Go to other websites such as Kaldu.org or Chaldeansonline.org for true information about Chaldeans. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrisch59 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 June 2006.
:Hi, I did go to that website that you said [khaldu.org] and what I read was "Contemporary Chaldeans and Assyrians:One Primordial Nation" - so would you like to explain yourself a little bit more or will you refuse to open your base of knowledge outside of your Bloomfield Hills community :) Chaldean 17:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WARNING 

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

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

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

message: Shaitan Al Mahdi recently re-created this page without any prior discussion. I'd like to hear other people's opinion's on this. —Khoikhoi 05:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been some discussion on the sideline regarding this matter. The apparent fact that there are Chaldean Catholic Church members who do not consider themselves Assyrians, but Chaldeans, might be enough justification to have a separate Chaldeans article. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, the question whether they consitute a separate ethnic group is not so easy to be answered, for there are various ways of defining ethnicity. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chaldeans]] page 

message: Why do people get so irritated when I tag the article as "unsourced", and certain sentences as unreferenced? This is no statement on the content of the article, but it is merely an indication that there is work to be done here. It is Wikipedia policy to provide reliable sources`, and if they're lacking, it should be mentioned.
Therefore, rather than removing the maintenance tags I added, please check your sources and state them. As soon as the article has been properly sourced, the tags can be removed. Remember that you're working on an encyclopaedia here, not a political forum. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

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

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

message: Thank you. סרגון יוחנא 14:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you agree to the current version of the page? —Khoikhoi 14:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the lock please. 

message: Since the Assyrian Picture of the Remergence of the Empire has been removed. I would like to add this back in after the lock is removed.
Many Assyrians hold apocalyptic beliefs in the future of their nation based on the following Bible passage:
In that day there shall be a way from Egypt to the Assyrians, and the Assyrian shall enter into Egypt, and the Egyptian to the Assyrians, and the Egyptians shall serve the Assyrian. In that day shall Israel be the third to the Egyptian and the Assyrian: a blessing in the midst of the land, Which the Lord of hosts hath blessed, saying: "Blessed be my people of Egypt, and the work of my hands to the Assyrian: but Israel is my inheritance." (Isaiah 19:23-25).
סרגון יוחנא 14:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing in Action 

message: Could you please remove the lock? Or at least could you remove the italian interwiki, that redirects to the story of ancient Assyria. Pegua 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Khoikhoi 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove italian interwiki 

message: Whoever wrote this page is obviously not an Assyrian nationalist, and is totally condecending the Assyrian race. The genetic study done by Cavalli Sforza is totally misunderstood and misrepresented in the "Modern and Ancient Assyrians." Also we do not speak Aramaic, we speak ASSYRIAN.  This page needs to get deleted... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.8.107.241 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 29 September 2006.
:Was this page supposed to be written by a nationalist? What if a Greek nationalist wrote all of the Greeks article? Would we have reliable information? Also, mind the personal attacks... —Khoikhoi 03:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What did you even waste your time to reply. Chaldean 03:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This current page on Assyrian People is a DISGRACE

message: Where are all the contributers?
:we have so much other work to do on other pages Chaldean 20:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work on this page has slowed...