Talk:Adiabene

message: Please provide verifiable sources for Adiabene being Assyrian. The names of their Kings like Izates( Ezid in Kurdish/ Izad in Persian means God) are Indo-European not Syriac. Moreover there is no evidence of any existing Jewish Assyrians. Throughout the Assyrian history there has been too much animosity between Assyrians and Jews.  Thanks. Heja Helweda 07:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come in response to the requested NPOV check.  I can find no openly biased comments in the text.  I've also found and cited several sources on the contents of the article, so the article now passes both WP:V and WP:NPOV.   I've removed the NPOV check flag on that basis.  Good luck.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assyrian?

message: The article states that the rulers converted from Christianity to Judaism in the 1st century, CE.  I found it unlikely that any first century rulers were Christian.  The religion was very new at the time, and early on it appealed primarily to the oppressed.  Owing to my doubts, I tried tracking down the source for this revision using the links provided.  However, I could find nothing that addressed this matter.  This may well be the result of my own shortcomings.  As a result, I ask those who have worked on this article to please review this matter and show me the source for this information.  I am keenly interested in the early Christians, and I would find further information about this particular matter very interesting.  Respectfully, Rklawton 18:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you read it carefully, the article never claims that they were Christians in the first place. They converted from their indigenous religions to Judaism though there is not enough info. on their original religion.Heja Helweda 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity to Judaism Conversion

message: I've added the factual accuracy banner for various reasons, mainly due to sourcing of the Kurdish claim. 
*The two cited books need to be directly cited. 
*The History of Aramaic source, where it claims has references to Adiabene, contains only a single mention of the kingdom where it also states ". . .in Assyria in the kingdom of Adiabene." No mention of Kurds and hardly a reliable source. 
*The two University of Chicago sources which supposedly deal with the Kingdom of Adiabene are actually two of the same source on what looks to be a document genetically linking Jews to the gene pool of the rest of the Middle East. Not quite sure what that has to do with citizens of Adiabene converting to Judaism or citizens of Adiabene being ethnically Kurdish. 
*The kulanu source only begins with "Nestled in the highlands of modern-day Kurdish Iraq" and does not describe Adiabene as being Kurdish. 
*The History of Christianity in Iran website is just that, a history of Christianity in Iran. Only mention of anything remotely Kurdish is ". . .mountains of Kurdistan."
*EretzYisroel is hardly a reliable source as it is biased (ie the line "Other neighboring nations affected by Islamic & Arab expansionism" on the main page).
*Finally, The history of Judaism in Kurdistan comes from a source called kurdistanica. Clearly biased, however, the source for that article seems to come from a Harvard professor. In this case, the original source needs to be cited. 
--3345345335534 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments are quite good, and I was coming to think that the Kurdish claim was quite weak considering the present sources. So, I've removed "Kurdish" from the article, and consequently, the disputed tag. Thanks for your constructive help. Aldux 16:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BOTTOM LINE - This was a Aramaic speaking Kingdom. Where is the Kurdish language of the region to claim it as a Kurdish kingdom? End of story. Chaldean 14:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed banner

message: It is clear that this article has been tainted with biased views. Good evidence for this is clear when one of the sources cited is
from the "Assyrian International News Agency", an agency steeped deep in nationalism. How can a dispute between the origin of a royal family
be decided when the evidence itself is questionable at best. 
On another note, many of the evidences showed are in fact from foreign professors but are very skewered in their research. The information presented on the 
side of Adiabene being Assyrian are from professors who in their retelling of Assyrian history entirely claim that the history of the Kurdish people is a false one.
Any professor disputing the proven genetic, linguistic and heredity link between the Kurdish people and ancient cultures of Hurrian or Medes is in itself a questionable source
to quote. 
For example the source "Adiabene was Assyrian, Not Kurdish" written by Fred Aprim claims that not only was Adiabene Assyrian but that the so called "rumour" of that family
having kurdish blood in them was perputrated by Kurdish Nationalists trying to solidfy a "fake" past, and I qoute "There is not a single reliable source that shows that the royal house of Adiabene (the region of ancient Arbela, modern Arbil in northern Iraq) was Kurdish; in fact it was Assyrian." Although this claim in itself is not sourced but an opinion. 
Fred then says "Furthermore, there is no proof whatsoever, archaeological and historical, that proves that modern Kurds inhabited Mesopotamia in ancient times." Although clearly the statement is false, Ancient Roman and Greek texts cite the kurdish people in that region numerous times in the Corduene province as Karduchi, Karda and Kurt, these sources are cited in the Kurdish section of wikipedia. The name itself derives from ancient persian, rooted from the word meaning "warriar" 
Fred by disputing the cultural and biological origin of a whole race is no different than the Turkish government disputing the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in the early 1900s. Either eliminating a race by military means or using scholar means to refute their history and existnce is no different in their end goal, which is to make a specific group of people dissapear. The article is also cited again from "Assyrian International News Agency" and cannot be considered unbiased. 
I implore the admins charged with maintaining the level of truth of this artcle to at least label it biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.65.205 (talk • contribs) 
:It is clear that this article has been tainted with biased views. — Yeah? How so? The only biased views that this article has been tainted with, is the Kurdification process that it has been under constant pressure of. Good evidence for this is clear when one of the sources cited is from the "Assyrian International News Agency", an agency steeped deep in nationalism. — This article, is in no way, cited by AINA. There is a link to an article by Fred Aprim which has been published on AINA, where Aprim argues that Adiabene was Assyrian, and his arguments sound convincing to me. But the article doesn't cite him. So please, stop misrepresenting your case just to grab a cheap point. As for AINA being nationalist, that is true, and get this: even nationalists can be right. Just because you are a nationalist, it doesn't mean every thing you utter, say and claim, is by default, wrong. The information presented on the side of Adiabene being Assyrian are from professors who in their retelling of Assyrian history entirely claim that the history of the Kurdish people is a false one. — Well, chances are that the history of the Kurdish people is entirely false. Let's face it, you can't even decide on who your ancestors were. One day, it's Medes, next day it's Hurrians, third day it's Mitanni, fourth day it's Gutium, and so on. Would you please stop this indecisive bullshit and just pick a race? Because really, you are not exactly displaying a certain genealogy by claiming descent from fifty different ancient ethnic groups. The Kurdish people is a very mixed people of different races. The only thing you have in common with Medes is a vague linguistic connection of Indo-Aryan languages. Languages tell you something about your origin, but it is not necessarily indicative of bloodlines. Your comparison with the genocide the Ottoman empire committed on Armenians (Armenian Genocide), Assyrians (Assyrian Genocide) and Greeks (Pontic Greek Genocide) is a very sarcastic likening, especially considering that Kurds perpetrated the genocides. It even becomes more ironic, considering that Kurds today in "Kurdistan" are calling Assyrians "Christian Kurds", which is in my point of view, an attempt at genocide, by denying the existence of Assyrians. By the way, have you seen this? Perhaps you Kurds shouldn't talk about who's committing a genocide on whom. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 15:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is biased

message: All the stuff which relates Medes to Kurds and Aramaic-speaking tribes of Middle east to Assyrians was a political fabrication of westerners to create cilvil war in middle east. Actually none of this theories are universally accepted and all are original research. Such articles need to be edited or watched with third party usersBrusk u Trishka (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the stuff which relates Medes to Kurds and Aramaic-speaking tribes of Middle east to Assyrians was a political fabrication of westerners to create cilvil war in middle east. — Do you expect yourself to be taken seriously? If so, knock off the conspiracy theories. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best proof is that today all sources reject the theories that Aramean tribes are related to the old assyrian beheaders the same Kurds have no ethnic relation to the old biblical medes. Furthermore distortion of a classical jewish principality as Asyrian is nothing but a void joke. Brusk u Trishka (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Mr. expert. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 15:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World War I and the recreation of Medo-Assyrian wars

message: I deleted the mentioned article since it obviously contains insult to the Kurdish Nation: "Only Kurdish writers make the wild claims...".(Kak Language (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The user above ment an external link of an article titled Adiabene was Assyrian. I agree, the article was baised.  Iraqi (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Article "Adiabene Was Assyrian" Must Be Deleted

message: So many disputes here, but no academic information. It is not serious to bring a reference from a Christian book to describe history. The fact is that Adiabene has been a Parthian vassal kingdom, with no direct relation to Assyria (long gone before that). Indeed the kingdom has also included former Assyrian lands and significant Assyrian population. However, Adiabene itself was not related ever as Assyrian, and its ruling cast were most probably of Hellenistic descent, with roots in previous Seleucid Empire in the region. Aramaic language of the locals was influenced by the official adoption of Aramaic during the Persian period. The country has also temporarily become dominated by Roman and later Byzantine Empire during Roman-Persian strife. After the decline of Persian Sassanid and Byzantine empires, Adiabene finally formed into Kurdish semi-independent sheikhdoms during the early middle ages (until Arab and Turk conquest). I must make parallels to Jerusalem Kingdom in what is today Israel. Can we relate to Crusader Kingdom as Byzantine? not at all. Can we relate to Crusader Kingdom as Israelite? Of course not. In the same manner Adiabene is neither Assyrian or Kurdish. It was Parthian, even though proto-Kurds and Assyrians surely made a significant portion of its population. I would be happy to hear some scholar view to say otherwise, and unless done so, the "Assyrian" relation will be removed by me next week.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree on not mentioning any modern ethnic groups in the article, certainly in in the lead for that matter. As you said the region was inhabited by Aramaic speaking people with many Iranic and Hellenistic elements. However, it's worthwhile to note that it was in the historical region of Assyria as it was known then.--Rafy talk 12:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually quiet forgot about this article, until seeing your remark. With this dormant status, i suggest we both can make some constructive edits for more referenced and NPOV representation, i will go back to the classic period after i finish with some modern issues.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Assyrian, Kurdish or actually none of above?

message: Here are a few of the "sources" used.
The first source is the Syro-Chaldean Church website. And far from being a reliable source. Not only that in the link given there is not a single mention of Adiabene for that matter. This "source" will be deleted
Second given source is, " The Biblical Geography of Central Asia: with a General Introduction. page 122"
 And it does not say that Romans renamed Adiabene to Assyria as it is claimed in the source description. The Source mentions that Pliny tried to describe were Assyria WAS by using modern (for his time) geographic regions. That is like me using modern South American state names to describe were the Inca Empire was located. A good evidence for this is that Pliny is talking in the past form about Assyria. And with no word does he mention Adiabene as Assyria or that Romans renamed it Assyria 
And this is the third source.
"Ammianus Marcellinus, another fourth-century writer. In his excursus on the Sasanian Empire he describes Assyria in such a way that there is no mistaking he is talking about lower Mesopotamia (Amm. Marc. XXIII. 6. 15). For Assyria he lists three major cities-Babylon, Ctesiphon and Seleucia (Amm. Marc. xxIII. 6. 23),"
Do people know where  lower Mesopotamia ist even located? What does Lower Mesopotamia has to do with Adiabene? And even Than again this source is only describing the historic location of Assyria, it does not claim these regions were still Assyria.
So the question remaining for me is, is this site even controlled by some Administrators, because certanly I smell a whole chunck of ethno-centrism around here.
Another typical ethno-centric sentence was  "The majority of the population in Adiabene spoke Aramaic" without a single evidence provided.
Some Admin should clean up this webpage.
regards
Wikisupporting (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Article even controlled? Assyra by 200 AD? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adiabene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021210062826/http://www.nestorian.org/bishops_of_adiabene.html to http://www.nestorian.org/bishops_of_adiabene.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified