Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 7

message: This article is a lie. Aramaic speaking Christians disappeared from the Middle East Centuries ago and the colonizers converted local Turks and Taught them Pseudo Aramaic and fed them this nonsense Assyrianism. Give up. Come back to your Turkish roots you traitors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.247.128 (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to break it down to you, but modern Turks in Turkey are barely of a Turkic race. Most of them are actually Greeks, Arabs, Assyrians, and other racial elements. This is what racially pure Turks look like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK7V44X-V3c Hardly what modern Assyrians look like. I highly suggest that, if you are from Turkey, you go ahead and DNA test yourself. Chances are your origins is of an Assyrian ancestry, albeit, a Turkified one. You have to learn to differentiate between race and culture (not the same thing). And no, race is not a "social construct", since that is bullshit because there are actual biological differences between different races. In any case, we Assyrians are not Turks. Too bad, pal... — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish Muslims converted by the French and the British. 

message: Megalommatis is not a WP:RS. He was even up on stormfront recently for his claim that Europeans are Assyrians, and even the Nazis couldn't take his bullshit seriously. The guy presents himself as: Orientalist, Assyriologist, Egyptologist, Iranologist, and Islamologist, Historian, Political Scientist, Dr. Megalommatis, 49, is the author of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of encyclopedia entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and writes more than 15, modern and ancient, languages. Come on, does anyone really believe that? Which accredited university is this Mr. Genius publishing his expertise for?  Google scholar only amounts to one hit. This guy isn't to be taken seriously and he's most likely a fraud or a con-artist because he makes all these bold statements and self-aggrandizement about himself, presenting himself like a big shot but he's nothing of a kind. Megalommatis should be kept out of every article on Wikipedia since he's no academic source. I'm tired of his attacks on our Assyrian ethnicity and how some moron Assyrians believe what he says and start believing they're Aramaeans because Megalommatis says that we are Aramaeans. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this the same one that suggested having concentration camps for Iraqi Sunni Arabs? And yet 3rd party users are not seeing how reduculus this whole thing is. This single user (Vegant with his IPs) is ruining Wiki pages, but 3rd party users all care about is following procedures. Give me a break. Chaldean (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the pseudo-Aramaeans are not smart enough to realise that this joke of a fraud is not representing their cause very well, their opinions should be ignored. This con-artist has also been involved in attacks on the Oromo people (not to be mistaken for Oromoyo fanatics though). He's been making a lot of ridiculous statements and his credibility is zero. I think it's quite good though that he's publishing a lot of disingenuous nonsense on aramnahrin because the more people like him on that site the better for us Assyrians. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And his other source is a mirror-website of Wikipedia of the page Arameans. Can this user just get banned from making these edits? If his not being contructive, whats the point of trying to couperate with him. Chaldean (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, his indopedia link is an old copy of Aramaeans (link:), which hardly makes it a WP:RS. These antics are signs of bad faith and should not be tolerated. And they're not here to make constructive edits, they're just here to edit war and try to get it their way. If they were here to present their case seriously they would read wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and take it seriously. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Someone here obviously needs to get acquainted with how Wikipedia works. Try reading WP:RS and WP:NPOV and WP:QUALITY. We can't accept "sources" here on Wikipedia because you like them or because these "sources" tell you what you want to hear. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and has encyclopaedic standards to maintain and follow, per WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA. We rely on serious sources, published by people who have at the very least a Ph.D or any similar academic background. Other sources, that are considered fairly reliable, but not necessarily academic, can be accepted. Megalommatis, is not one of those sources. And don't make stuff up, me and User:Chaldean have very good reasons to remove the joke that is Megalommatis, simply because he is not a scholar, but rather, a cheap fraud who claims to be Mr. tough shit yet he doesn't even know what he's talking about in his articles. I find it unbelievable that you aren't even ashamed of bringing this guy up as your supposedly credible source and representing your cause. Have some dignity and don't back up your history with Megalommatis; he writes all kinds of nonsense with no grip on reality. If you keep reinserting this Megalommatis joke, it will be reverted by me and everyone else until you get blocked for violating WP:3RR. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: what that person is saying is inresting - how do you want to be taken seriously when you say something like this? Do you even know what an Encyclopedia is? Hint: Its not a Blog. Chaldean (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read what he says. stop your false assyrian propaganda.. both of you tries to make every article here inwikiepdia "assyrian". EliasAlucard you are a problem in english wikipedia and also in swedish wikipedia. you try to make all articles in swedish wikipedia assyrian. you try remove the article about Syriacs in both swedish and english wikipedia. cant you just accept that Syriacs is a ethnic group and that you and your friend Chaldean belongs to the Syriacs, descendants to the arameans! 91.126.59.166 (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And Megalommatis is still not an academic source. The ethnic group is Assyrian. Even Suryoyo is spelled with a silent Aleph in our church history. We Syriacs are Assyriacs, or more properly, Assyrians. Get over it. Anyway, get it through your head that Megalommatis is not acceptable on Wikipedia. He is not a credible source. Do you at all understand what that means? Believe me, you don't really want this moron saying you guys are Aramaeans because he's a fraud. If you understood any better you wouldn't bring up Megalommatis. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And you sir, are most definitely wrong when you claim that only those who are pushing for Assyrian are from "Roman Assyria" and those who aren't are from "Roman Syria". There are Assyrians from Roman Assyria (the so called "Chaldeans") who aren't pushing for Assyrian whereas there are "Chaldeans" who are pushing for Assyrian. And there are those who are from Roman Syria who are pushing for Assyrian. Look, forget about what you read on that Friesian site. It was written by an outsider who has no real understanding of this issue, and while he may be agnostic on the matter whether we are Assyrians or not, he does not know all the details. This isn't a coherent dispute between two cohesive divisions. There are religious factors, nationalistic factors, historical factors, and many other reasons as to why the dispute is the way it is. Don't try to simplify things by generalizing because it's not that simple. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and, the preceding silent aleph has everything to do with this question. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Megalommatis

message: I dont care what hi is or what he studied. He´s doing a interview with the person, and what that person is saying is inresting, not what megalommatis are or what he has studied or how many languages he can speek. And stop removing what im writing. Chaldean, you remove everything without any reason. you cant do that. as long as i have sources as backup for the text im writing in the article, you and EliasAlucard dont have any right to remove everything i write!VegardNorman (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone here obviously needs to get acquainted with how Wikipedia works. Try reading WP:RS and WP:NPOV and WP:QUALITY. We can't accept "sources" here on Wikipedia because you like them or because these "sources" tell you what you want to hear. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and has encyclopaedic standards to maintain and follow, per WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA. We rely on serious sources, published by people who have at the very least a Ph.D or any similar academic background. Other sources, that are considered fairly reliable, but not necessarily academic, can be accepted. Megalommatis, is not one of those sources. And don't make stuff up, me and User:Chaldean have very good reasons to remove the joke that is Megalommatis, simply because he is not a scholar, but rather, a cheap fraud who claims to be Mr. tough shit yet he doesn't even know what he's talking about in his articles. I find it unbelievable that you aren't even ashamed of bringing this guy up as your supposedly credible source and representing your cause. Have some dignity and don't back up your history with Megalommatis; he writes all kinds of nonsense with no grip on reality. If you keep reinserting this Megalommatis joke, it will be reverted by me and everyone else until you get blocked for violating WP:3RR. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: what that person is saying is inresting - how do you want to be taken seriously when you say something like this? Do you even know what an Encyclopedia is? Hint: Its not a Blog. Chaldean (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read what he says. stop your false assyrian propaganda.. both of you tries to make every article here inwikiepdia "assyrian". EliasAlucard you are a problem in english wikipedia and also in swedish wikipedia. you try to make all articles in swedish wikipedia assyrian. you try remove the article about Syriacs in both swedish and english wikipedia. cant you just accept that Syriacs is a ethnic group and that you and your friend Chaldean belongs to the Syriacs, descendants to the arameans! 91.126.59.166 (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And Megalommatis is still not an academic source. The ethnic group is Assyrian. Even Suryoyo is spelled with a silent Aleph in our church history. We Syriacs are Assyriacs, or more properly, Assyrians. Get over it. Anyway, get it through your head that Megalommatis is not acceptable on Wikipedia. He is not a credible source. Do you at all understand what that means? Believe me, you don't really want this moron saying you guys are Aramaeans because he's a fraud. If you understood any better you wouldn't bring up Megalommatis. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And you sir, are most definitely wrong when you claim that only those who are pushing for Assyrian are from "Roman Assyria" and those who aren't are from "Roman Syria". There are Assyrians from Roman Assyria (the so called "Chaldeans") who aren't pushing for Assyrian whereas there are "Chaldeans" who are pushing for Assyrian. And there are those who are from Roman Syria who are pushing for Assyrian. Look, forget about what you read on that Friesian site. It was written by an outsider who has no real understanding of this issue, and while he may be agnostic on the matter whether we are Assyrians or not, he does not know all the details. This isn't a coherent dispute between two cohesive divisions. There are religious factors, nationalistic factors, historical factors, and many other reasons as to why the dispute is the way it is. Don't try to simplify things by generalizing because it's not that simple. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and, the preceding silent aleph has everything to do with this question. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: about Megalommatis

message: The stuff on the Friesian site is interesting. I found the original article in the Wayback archives. And it is sad to read all those letters of protest that Kelley Ross received, and that moved him to withdraw this information: http://www.friesian.com/notes/assyrian.htm . /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That article does bring up some interesting points but certainly not every detail. For instance, he writes: Self-identified Chaldeans and Aramaeans are frequently called "Assyrians" by Assyrian nationalists. — This is true, except for the omission of the fact that it's not Assyrians from the Assyrian Church of the East who call "Chaldeans" and "Aramaeans", Assyrians. It's from their own churches where this is happening. There are many Syriac Orthodox Christians who are originally from "Roman Syria" and are Assyrianists. The same is true for the so called Chaldeans. That article seems more like an anti-nationalist essay than trying to actually present all sides. Oh and, this is a funny statement: As descendants of real Aramaeans, the modern Chaldeans are more likely to be related to the real Chaldeans than anyone else, but there is no documentary or historical connection that can be traced after the age of Nebuchadrezzar, when the ethnic Chaldeans had blended into the older Babylonian population, and Aramaic began to be spoken by everyone. — Yes, there's a good reason why there are no documents or any actual proof that modern Chaldean Catholics are descendants of the ancient Chaldeans. It's because we are not. We Chaldean Catholics are Assyrians. It's that simple. And the Chaldean name has only in recent times been attached onto a stock of Assyrians, which has only complicated this issue. He makes bold statements without being an expert on the subject and most of his article is based on hearsay rather than citing academic sources. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 19:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and in case you didn't figure it out, that article isn't an objective description of modern Assyrians and our name issue. It's a biased, anti-Assyrian piece of paper, probably written by some Christian fundamentalist who is very biased due to the negative depiction of Assyrians in the Bible, trying to instil feelings of a collective guilt over what our forefathers did against the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel (as if the Israelites themselves were innocent angels), and by mentioning the crimes of our forefathers, trying to make us feel guilty and un-Assyrian. It has false assumptions that modern Chaldean Catholics are the descendants of the ancient Chaldeans simply because modern Assyrians have a church called the Chaldean Catholic Church. Self-proclaimed experts who haven't done their homework really shouldn't speak on such complicated issues as this. We modern Assyrians have all the right in the world to identify with the ancient Assyrians and no one has the right to come and use "Assyrian" as a word of shame against us. Unfortunately, the Assyrian ethnicity is under attack not only from this Friesian site, but also from modern Assyrians themselves (so called "Aramaeans" and "Chaldeans"), Kurds (who nowadays claim that modern Assyrians are not Assyrians, but get this, "Kurdish Christians"), Turks, Arabs, and just about everyone else. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Friesian Proceedings

message: Need an admin to restore this article to the last stable version by User:Chaldean, the current version is POV, OR and as can be gleaned from the discussion above, filled with sources that do not pass reliability, and don't even get me started about its poor grammar in the beginning of the lead ("them selfs"). Simply put, the current revision is beyond tolerance. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted, not because of POV or OR (I'm hardly qualified to judge), but because everyone here is using the talk page with the exception of VegardNorman, who has so far declined to talk about his edits save for this barely coherent post that didn't really address the content issues adequately (or at all, for that matter). – Steel 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks man. Keep it protected for a while, we'll see if this VegardNorman guy can present his case adequately. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Need an edit

message: Hey, should we use this population chart? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is Zenda (an obviously Assyrianist website) a reliable source? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you consider Zinda unreliable, that means Zinda is reliable and flawless. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 10:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No I dont think we should use it. I always emphisize on using census provided by each state. And if census date isn't available, then we look for other sources, like Zinda, etc. Chaldean (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my point, we don't have census for many countries which this Zinda link covers. I don't see the problem. Benne is of course protesting as usual because it's Zinda and not Aramnahrin but I don't see how that is a problem since this isn't about the name dispute. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well obviously Zinda claiming 400,000 Assyrians live in United States, isn't neutral. Chaldean (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on, do you seriously believe there are only 82 000 Assyrians in all of the United States? That's just the recent census, and I seriously doubt every single Assyrian participated in that census. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there are more then 82K, but we don't know exactly how much. Thats why I believe it is more apropriate to post most recent census. Its unfortunate the US does census only once very ten years, but oh well, we'll wait in 2010 to see what the population is. Chaldean (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion to use this Zinda link as statistics is not about the US census. I think it should be used where we don't have statistics available. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats fine. Perhaps we can post all the smaller countries in teh Assyrian diaspora page. Chaldean (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Population statistics

message: The article starts with "The Assyrians (also called Syriacs or Chaldeans; see names of Syriac Christians)...".
It starts by saying that Assyrians are sometimes called Syriacs or Chaldeans, meaning that all Syriacs and Chaldeans are Assyrians. This is indeed POV. EliasAlucard also reverts the edits and keeps the pov-pushing, I suggest he stops that. The TriZ (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should take it up with dab. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 15:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you get it. What part of our identity is not negotiable don't you understand? Chaldean (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, it's great that User:VegardNorman, threatens with more persistent vandalism if the article doesn't conform to his world view. I think this can get him banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you need to follow your own suggestions. You keep your revoluationary thoughts out of here. What you do in Swedish wiki has no effect on other language Wikis. Chaldean (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather say their thoughts are reactionary, not revolutionary. And pointing to WP:NPOV, when you haven't even read it yourself, is pointless. There's no way that User:VegardNorman or User:The TriZ are in compliance with any serious wikipedia policy. They're just here to revert war and vandalise stable articles so that they can get it their way. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It is not. It is written with citations that Syrian is dirivited from Assyrian. Chaldean (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Seriously what is your problem? Can you not follow? For the last time, the first sentence is not POV, because its backed with multiple sources in the article. Chaldean (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For once and for all, SYRIAC ARAMEANS ARE NOT ASSYRIANS, THERE ARE MULTIPLE NON-SUBJECTIVE EXPERTS (Sebastian Brock, Witold Witovski, Otto Jastrow, Bengt Knutsson and if course many more) SAYING IT, WHAT YOU THINK IS NOT INTERESTING AND SHOULD NOT BE REFLECTED IN THE ARTICLES. Sorry about CAPS, but maybe you can see what im writing then. The TriZ (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never actually read Brock state explicitly that we are Aramaeans, from a racial point of view. He has stated that we have an Aramaean cultural heritage, as in language. That's not the same as being an Aramaean and falls under WP:OR. Hopefully though, by the end of this century, the Aramaic language will be extinct and the curse of this language (i.e., the falsely reconstructed Aramaean identity) will disappear from the Assyrian people along with the neo-Aramaic language. Our Assyrian ancestors truly cursed us by adopting the Aramaic language. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 18:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: So, what does a wiki encyclopaedia without much content and filled with amazon.com advertisement, have anything to do with this? The only one seriously working on this Beth Mardutho wiki, is User:Garzo, And yes, I've seen it before; you still fail to realise that Syriac is not an ethnicity, it's a language used by an ethnic group, and the majority of this ethnic group doesn't identify as Aramaeans. And fortunately, it's not a dream, but a reality which seems inevitable at the moment that the neo-Aramaic language will die out. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: And the only one working on it is still Garzo. Yes, he's not the only one registered, but he's working on it pretty much alone. Again, what does Beth Mardutho have to do with this? Do they have an article about the Assyrian naming dispute? Why are you bringing it up here? Is this some bragging nonsense? How is Beth Mardutho at all relevant to this discussion? — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: And there are more "highly educated" people saying that we are Assyrians. By the way, you guys don't own "Syriac". It's not yours. Whether you like it or not, a large majority of the Syriac-speaking Christians, identify as Assyrians. This is an indisputable fact. The entire Church of the East, identifies as Assyrians. That's around 500 000 to 600 000 or so adherents. Beside that, the Ancient Church of the East, identifies as Assyrians. The Chaldean Catholic Church, is divided, but a huge portion of it still proudly stick to the fact that they are Assyrians. The Syrian Orthodox Church and its Catholic counterpart, the Syrian Catholic Church, although not universally, identify as Assyrians. So what we have left is a tiny portion of the Syriac-speaking Christians, who reject their Assyrian identity, based on a mistranslation of Aram into Syria, in the bible. We have another group, of Syriac-speaking Christians, who seriously believe they are descendants of the Chaldean dynasty (which is more fiction than fact). All in all though, most of us, are of the opinion that we are Assyrians. Yes, there are those of us who disagree with this, but that's a POV without authority and held by an insignificant minority. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sebastian Brock has close relations with the Syriac Orthodox Church. He has every reason in the world to bullshit our ethnicity. And please point out, specifically, where he has stated that we are ethnic Aramaeans. Until then, do not one more time repeat that statement. Claims of a cultural heritage is not the same as ethnicity. The ancient Assyrians and the Babylonians, had a Sumerian cultural heritage. But they were not ethnically Sumerians. Likewise, Americans today have arguably a Graeco-Roman cultural heritage, but guess what? They are neither Greeks nor Romans. Furthermore, Cavalli-Sforza, one of the best geneticists in the world, has stated in his DNA tests about the Assyrians: they are Christians and are possibly bona fide descendants of their namesakes. I take that any day of the week over Brock. Brock's opinion is not interesting anyway. All he knows is church history, he doesn't know much beyond that. Believe it or not, but our roots aren't limited to early Christianity. By the way, I think you should read Fred Aprim's book the continuous saga (). I'm reading it right now, and I can only say that we are beyond a shadow of a doubt, Assyrians. Oh and yes, the pseudo-Aramaeans are of course an insignificant minority pretty much only existing in northern Europe. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but Swedish Wikipedia is not an authority, and doesn't count as a WP:RS (especially, seeing how :sv:Användare:Oromoyo has changed the numbers, from 1500 to 150 years). I happen to have the scanned image here, and Sebastian Brock, states that "Suryoye" is not an ethnic designation, but rather, a religious one. He claims that "Oromoye" is an ethnic designation, which is of course nonsense, since it's not even in use by 80% of the ethnic group in question. He also, quite obviously, doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, when he states that the ethnic designation "Assyrian" lacks historical context, because it clearly doesn't. Either he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's bribed by the Syriac Orthodox Church to conjure up lies (both options are actually possible). Try reading some other literature. I suggest you get yourself a copy of Fred Aprim's book. In that book, Aprim cites numerous scholars, historians, and many many other experts in the field, who clearly prove that the Assyrian ethnicity, is a reality. And there was no such thing as "Suryoyo Oromoyo" in the Ottoman empire. It was Suryoyo Othuroyo, as attested by Horatio Southgate, and the Armenian nation. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I agree with the move. I have had it with the pathetic nomenclature nonsense. I frankly don't care that these people call themselves, but if they must  make  a spectacle of themselves by public in-fighting, we'll have to settle for a slash-solution. dab (𒁳) 15:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your logic is extremely flawed, dab. You want them to cease their acknowledged vandalism, by appeasing them and move the page to their preferred version, in order to make them stop the nonsense. This rationale is against Wikipedia policy, and  is not at all common (only in Sweden, due to political correctness from the Swedish government) and moving this page would violate WP:COMMONNAME and you know that. I suggest an indefinite block on User:VegardNorman because he has acknowledged that if he doesn't get it his way, he will continue with vandalism. This should not be tolerated. Appeasing him with a move is not how Wikipedia operates. This is the same rationale Internet trolls like the Gay Nigger Association of America justified when they got their article deleted from Wikipedia; the choice between allowing their article undeleted on Wikipedia or unleashing more vandalism on Wikipedia if they didn't get it their way. It's the same thing with User:VegardNorman, and you dab want to give into it and relent for the sake of a vandal account. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If were going to follow census, then the US is the ONLY COUNTRY in this world that does that. What about all of the other countries that lists Assyrian only? They are going to get powered by the US alone? That doesn't make any sense. For the last time, our ethnicity is not negotiable. This is so silly. Its like going to the Greek people page and suggesting it to move to Greeks/Macedonians. We need to all calm down and use common sense. Chaldean (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the edit summary of User:VegardNorman's last edit on the article: Let both groups be united. the term Assyrian/Syriac unites both groups and there will be no more vandalism, because now everyone is satisfied, or else the vandalism will continue.. How can this be tolerated? He's basically saying: do as I say, or else we will continue vandalising this article until I get it my way. That's beyond tolerance. Regarding the US census, that's no authority on this matter. The slash solution that was put forth was nothing but a politically correct compromise, without taking a stance on the dispute. Before that, all Chaldean Catholics, and all Syriac Orthodox Christians were categorised under Assyrian in the US census. What matters here is the authority of scholars, academics, Assyriologists, and other people with an authoritative insight on this ethnic group, and that's what we should adhere to. Very few, if any, calls teh ethnic group in question, "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac". It's either "Assyrians" or their ecclesiastical denominations' designation (i.e., Chaldean, Syriac or Assyrian). And according to WP:COMMONNAME policy, this article should be Assyrian on the basis of the common name:  vis-à-vis    (notice that I added "people" in order to single out references to the ancient ethnic groups by the same name(s)). — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, follow the US census. But it will not put an end to the conflict. Next thing they will continue arguing about names of languages, genocides and whatnot. It is a pathetic waste of energy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this article should not follow the US census. It is a pathetic waste of energy. — Couldn't have said it better myself. And it's equally pathetic to move this article to Assyrians/Syriacs because it won't stop from there. In any case, WP:COMMONNAME applies here, not the US census. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 20:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point here is, the US census is subject to change and should not be considered an authority on this because there are many other censuses conducted by other countries, and they don't list the ethnic group, after religious denominations. "Chaldean", is a religious denomination. Likewise, is "Syriac", a religious denomination (even though, it originally has a different etymology). The ethnic group in question, is Assyrian. DNA researchers, Assyriologists, historians, and many other experts, simply do not call this ethnic group, "Assyrians/Syriacs". We Assyrians dislike this compound name, for many reasons. We don't want to be bunched together as "Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs/Aramaeans/Phoenicians/" because it looks stupid. The notion that this compound name would achieve unity is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Also, the US census is very politically motivated. A good example is how "white" was replaced with "European American" in the 1970's. This is, obviously, because of political reasons and Wikipedia has no obligation to cater the US census for not being able to make up its mind. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The US census, a few years ago, listed the ethnic group, as Assyrian. This applied to Chaldean Catholics as well as Syriac Orthodox Christians. After pressure from religious leaders (mostly from the Syriac Orthodox Church, but also some from the Chaldean Catholic Church), the US census was changed in order to appease a few religious nutjobs. And English Wikipedia is not solely an American Wikipedia. It's an international Wikipedia. The compound name is rarely in use by the ethnic group itself, and it shouldn't be used here either, because that's not how this ethnic group is called in colloquial speech, and neither by the experts. Kevin B. MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist, in his research, calls this ethnic group, Assyrians. Cavalli-Sforza, a DNA researcher, in his DNA tests, calls this ethnic group, Assyrians. Simo Parpola, an Assyriologist, calls this ethnic group, Assyrians. Academic and scientific study, calls this ethnic group, Assyrians. That's what Wikipedia should reflect. Not politically correct appeasement of religious denominations. And the US census is simply not common, and the way US authorities handled the issue, they should be ashamed of themselves for not investigating further into the matter, but rather chose a "neutral" compound title. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 13:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: We are interested in what they are called in English - They are callled ASSYRIAN in English! Obviously you ignored the google results to prove that. I think you don't even know what was the main reason for the US Census to move to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac. The biggest push for this was done so by American Maronite Lebanese leaders who refused to be listed as Arabs. So actually, changing it would be even more wrong, since this page does not deal with Maronites. In reply to your comment of because it leads to confusion with the ancient Assyrians - there is no confusion, it is perfectly clear why today Assyrians call themselves Assyrians - because of connection to the ancient Assyrians. THe article explains this later, with sources and there (the Assyrians) view and notable scolars that back them up, as well as neutralizing it by bringing the other side of the arguement as well (rejecting the identity.) Once again, I strongly disagree with the name changing. Chaldean (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It is irrelevant what the "Assyrians" are called in Bulgaria - English is the offical language in Canada, and in there census they use Assyrian alone. It just doesn't make sence for the US statistics beraue to be the mother of all answers. Chaldean (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry dab, but I don't happen to be a mind reader, and I certainly cannot read your mind. We have an article, entitled European American. This, mostly because of the US census. THere's a very good case to have an article entitled Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs, but it should not be this one, and it should be about the US census (which is arguably a notable event as far as the US census is concerned). — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: move

message: Assyrian DNA section is totally inaccurate in my opinion, where it refers to them being the natives of Iraq. The actual sources do support that Assyrians are a totally different ethnic group from Arabs, but it also shows that Assyrians are genetically closer to Jordanians than Iraqis, and there is no proof what so ever that they are the sole Natives or even the actual decendant of the Mesopotamian people, rather that they are genetically closed, ethnically differentiated and genetically very close to Jordanians.
This does not constitute proof of them being decendants of the Mesopotamian people - rather almost contradicts that with their genetic and ethnic closeness to the Jordanians who are not Mesopotamian people.
Also, aramaec is not the original language of the Assyrian people untill they were converted to Christianity in the 'Aramaicisation' period were they extensively intermarried with the Aramaic populations of the Levant, supported by many ancient texts. The populations of Mesopotamia have themselves also extensively intermarried, so they should at least share some closeness to the Arabised Mesopotamians from Babylonia in Iraq oif the are indiginous mesopotamians which they don't. 
I removed that section untill reliable sources can be given. Thanks. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and there is no proof what so ever that they are the sole Natives or even the actual decendant of the Mesopotamian people - the proof is the language they speak. That goes without saying. You don't need a source to prove Assyrians are indeginious to the region. Thats like wanting prove Greeks are indegenious to Athens. Chaldean (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Language DOES NOT constitute race nor ethnicity, they are totally different things. It is similar to saying that Spanish-speaking Latinos are indiginous to Spain, it is totally wrong. Also, Aramaic was NOT the language indiginous to the area of nothern Iraq, but rather the Levant, thus Jesus speaking it, so by your point, they are rather indiginous to the Levant. Thanks. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth are you talking about. You must not be aware that Aramaic became the lingua franca of Mesopotamia and Persian empire. Assyrian kings from 1362 BC and forward spoke only Aramaic - from Nineveh (Northern Iraq.) And, yes, language for what defines an ethnicity (look at the article.) Universal languages such as Spanish and English are totally a different situation. Chaldean (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No Langua Franca itself does not constitue ethnicity, ethnicity is defined by race please read THAT article. Languages come and go, and change offen, just like they did in Assyria, so are no evidence of racial relationship. Arabic and Kurdish are now the lingua franca of that region, so how do we know their language did not change again? Plus there IS NO genetic proof that they are the actual decendants of the original Mesopotamians, and THAT is what constitutes ethnicity, not a language which most probably stayed with them due to religion as with most of their culture. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits are really disturbing and I'm beginning to think your a suck-puppet. Chaldean (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No they are not. The user outright claims there is absolutly not proof of connection between the ancient Mesopotamia and today's Northern Iraq. Yet the page has clearly balanced the two sides (for and against) with credible sources that the user is removing because its crap. Chaldean (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read a bit more closely, Chaldean--I said that the points he's making about language are sound. What language a group speaks today isn't necessarily evidence of its genetic affiliation with an ancient group that spoke a related language. As for "ethnicity", that's mostly a matter of self-definition (or group definition, I guess I should say), but good luck trying to get anyone to adopt an impartial position about ethnicity on Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Akhillus for rewording my views better. I stick by my opinion and wont do any more distruptive edit. I would like to dispute the neutrality of this article as many sources are from Assyrian nationalist or Assyrians themselves were in our culture it is so much grander to think of oneself as being decendants of an ancient people. I also believe this article is suggestive of that they are indeed decendants merely on bases of language, without balancing that out with the alternate opinion of language has no relations to genetics (in this case I believe it is more to do with religion). This article also fails to clearly point out that there is no conclusive genetic data (ie comparing modern assyrian genetics with those of ruins - if any exist). Merely being different genetically does not automatically mean they are decendants of the ancients, and besides which it's a fact that most Mesopotamian peoples became assimilated with newer peoples, so why are assyrians so different? I just got a message saying I'm suspected of sockpuppetting or whatever. I'm new here and would appreciate help on what to do to prove that otherwise and place somesort of complaint against whoever wasted my time. Many thanks. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Thanks The TriZ for that info, I appreciate it. Although I have written on the case page that I believe these allegations are frivilous, I am more than glad to do an IP check or whatever to prove these allegations are wrong, even if it slightly compromises my privacy. Thanks. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still don't know what to do next with the sock-puppetree case. Can an admin please help me what steps to take next? If I do the IP check and it comes out negative, am I entitled to lodge a complaint against Chaldean? And finally if Chadean continues to refuse to discuss here until the sockpuppetree case is finished, how do I go about editting it as no-one else seems to disagree. Many thanks in advance Nabuchadnessar (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been some time and no-one is answering me - typical of Wikipedia it seems. This is the last chance for discussion until I edit this article to how I see will make it more just and less biased. Admins please discuss here rather than reverting my edits and calling them vandalism, as no-one seems to raise any arguement against them. I am getting the impression some Admins hold biased beliefs themselves and are just editing to what the want without proper explanation. I have tried contacting admins but got no response, so please discuss here or tell me where else to discuss edits. To say my opinion again, I believe this article wrongly protrays the Assyrian peoples as the direct and only decendants of the ancient Mesopotamians with no conclusive genetic proof but rather on the simple bases of language, which is defferent to ethbnicity. If they want to call themselves Assyrians that is OK, as ethnicity is self-determined, but decent is not. The first source on the DNA section even shows that Assyrians are genetically very close to Jordanian Arabs, which has been conviently ignored by the Assyrianist authors of this page. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  Thank god finaly! I am trying to say that there is NO CONCLUSIVE proof that they are geneological decendants, but rather Bon Fide or ethnicly decendants, as ethnicity is self-determining. This article is unjust and full of POV from Assyrianist scholars who blindly proclaim Assyrians are the only GENEOLOGICAL decendants of ancient Mesopotamians only on the bases of language and culture, but those things have nothing to do with genetics, like the example of Hispanics. I believe POV has no place in Wikipedia, especially this controversial topic, and they should rather simply give the facts to make it neutral - ie 'Assyrians are Bon Fide (good faith) decendants of the ancient Assyrians' rather than 'Some wanker (whose Assyrianist) says they are the only decendants of the Assyrians'. There are genetic tests - especially from the National Geographics institue (like 37 marker mtDNA) which can be used, as it can be compared with bone-tissue mtDNA (I think it's because if the tough properties of Mitochondria - that they don't decay like cells or something like that) from ancient preserved samples of Mesopotamians. The closeness of the DNA can determine the liklihood of relations/geneological decent. I'm not too sure about the exact mechanics of it all, but you can go to the National geographic's Ethno-geographic project site and check it out. And for my name, well it's a long story: I am an Arab, and after a bet with an ignorant idiots I know, decided to get a DNA test to show that I am a closer decendant to the first Muslim tribes (who some say are related to Prophet Muhammed and his family) despite being Athiest. The results I got showed that my ancestors moved into Iraq from the Arabian Peninsula about 3500 BC - way before Islam/Arabs, and the suggested ethnicity on it was native Mesopotamians. Interestingly too, in the geneological break-down, I'm also like 13% Jewish, but only 12% Arab :D ! I'm thinking of doing another DNA test to cofirm they didn't get mine mixed up or something, in the future when I have the money to spend again. Anyway, you can see why I chose that name. May I ask about you name? Why you chose your ethnicity as you name, because I haven't met anyone else who for example calls themselves 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'Aryan' or 'Black' without assuming they're supremacist nutjobs lol :D . Nabuchadnessar (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with a lot of your point Waleeta, but the point I was trying to raise is that the Assyrians are not by far the ONLY decendants of the Mesopotamians (decendants I mean genetically not culturally etc...), especially if you keep in mind that most Arabs in Iraq and the Leventine are Arabized native populations rather than geological decendants of the Arabians, so most can also trace their ancestory to Iraq for thousands of years. And as much as you want us to respect your cultural ethnicity claim (remember ALL ethnicity is self-determining, and not necessarily geneological), we ask that you respect ours (Arab Iraqis), as most of us also claim to be decendants of the ancient peoples there, and I for one, have geneological factor (btw does that qualify as a source to prove my point if needed) - rarely any Iraqi Arabs now claim decent from the Arabian peninsula, especially with new Iraqi Nationalism. I can't see why their ethnicity cannot be respected equally, and the part of this article which says or suggests Assyrians are the ONLY decendants of the Mesopotamian peoples changed, to rather say, for example, 'The Assyrians are Bon Fide decendants of the Ancient Assyrians/Mesopotamians'. I will happily settle for that, then I'll go about changing the Article on Iraqis in it's different discussion to accomidate the Iraqi Nationalist view if it doesn't already do so. Just doing my bit to help Wikipedia before uni starts. ;) Nabuchadnessar (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks man, yeah, I forgot to add the Arabized Persians, Kurds and Turks - plus a whole load of other races. :D Strangely, most still manage to keep record of everyone's family's decent, so I don't think we Arabs might be any better and less inbred - but I have no genetic data on it - the source seems to mainly focus on the Assyrians. So I think the PoV assumption should be removed, and replaced by the actual facts - they are relatively a genetically-closed community and there DNA is considerably different from Arabian Peninsula Arabs, and similar to Indiginous Iraqi and Jordanian populations. I'm sure our readers could draw their own conclusions, rather than feeding them that of someone else - especially since it can easily be mistaken for fact. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA Section 

message: SvD (Svenska Dagbladet) says that there are 80.000 "Syrianer"(Syriac-Arameans)/Assyrians living in Sweden, not Assyrians. It is generally known that there are more Syriac-Arameans then Assyrians in Sweden. This article is about Assyrians. Not Syriac-Arameans. Therefore the population written in the infobox is wrong. The TriZ (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have just double checked that source, and I agree, it does say "Syrianer".Nabuchadnessar (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Europe is tricky, since most countries don't take ethnic cencus, let alone having a reliable source. Earlier in the project, we pledged that we would only use offical census from each nation, and to the ones that do not have census, the most reliable source available should be used. Chaldean (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand what you mean Chaldean, but I think you should find the right sources before making the statement - rather than writing what appeals to you then going out to find the sources which is inaccurate and unreliable - and will end up making the whole of Wikipedia a free-for-all. I suspect this is what has been done in the majority of this article. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: "Syrianer" is the Swedish word for those who refers themsels as Syriac-Arameans. Those whom call themselfs Assyrians are refered in Swedish to "Assyrier". The TriZ (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In Sweden, what about those who don't identify themselves with neither Assyrian or Aramean, but rather just Syriac (Suraya/Suroyo), what do they call themselves in Sweden? Chaldean (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: it appears a lot of the "disputes" around here stem from confusion of this article's scope. Some people seem to assume that this article discusses East Syriacs ("Eastern Assyrians", "Nestorians") to the exclusion of West Syriacs. This is patently not the case. Already, the ethnic group infobox includes both Syrian and Iraqi populations. This is the article on all Neo-Aramaic speaking ethnic grouplets. It may make sense to  a sub-article on East Syriacs (Nestorians, at present this redirects to East Syrian Rite) the same way we have aricles on Chaldean Christians and West Syriacs. This would establish some sort of symmetry. dab (𒁳) 08:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dab, what right does it give you to declare what this page is? All neo-Aramic speakers? Does that include Maronites too, since there are a few Maronites that speak Neo-Aramaic? What about Arabs (muslims) in Syria that speak Neo-Aramaic? They are included in this article as well? And the few Indians that speak Neo-Aramaic, are they included too? This is certianly not the case. The Kurdish people page does not talking about anybody that speaks Kurdish, but rather a group of people that consider themselves Kurdish. For example; this page may not include all of Yezidi people, since there are some whom don't consider themselves Kurdish at all. The same with Zaza people as well. Chaldean (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: Dab continues to be wrong about the beginning paragraph. Under Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template we see nowhere in the intro paragraph does it ask for user to talk about religious dinoms. Religion lines is in fact discussed under bulletin 3.2 []. In fact sub-groups are, according to the template, should be placed in the buttom under classifications [] and not in the intro.  Chaldean (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what a "religious dinom" is, but your argument is empty anyway. Clearly, the subgroup structure of this ethnic group is complicated, and bound to confuse people. It is you who insists on mentioning the 'Chaldean' subgroup in the lead. And I agree, it is important to clear up this confusion right away. This is what the lead is doing now. dab (𒁳) 12:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating your own rules will not get us anywhere. I think it would be a good to follow the guidelines we are given by the WikiProject Ethnic Group and to try to emulate the rest of Wiki's ethnic pages to the best we can. Sub-Groups and Religon groups should not to be listed in the beginning paragraph, but rather down the article. Chaldean (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: you're not even making plain what your objection is. I aim at clarity.  If you have factual objections, or objections on grounds of neutrality, pray state them. Can we postpone discussing the details of layout? You are not being honest, Chaldean, you try to wave around MoS (inexpertly) so you can go back to a muddled presentation that will allow you to make misleading suggestions. I have no interest in such a debate. Edit honestly or stop editing. Ask for third party input if you are under the impression that I am misbehaving. I will not waste bona fide expositions on somebody who doesn't reciprocate. dab (𒁳) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dab, all I want is for the good of Wikipedia. I really believe your last edit was simply making the page tacy looking and I have asked for a 3rd opinion from the Ethnic WikiProject. I will be interested in what they say. Let us wait and see. Chaldean (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginning paragraph