Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 2

message: Image:ninweh.jpg
Image:shamash.jpg
Image:benypal.jpg
Image:malkim.jpg
Image:sinho.jpg
Image:wbull.jpg
Image:frot.jpg
Image:qetladarya.jpg
Image:asuraye.JPG
Image:Shamiram.jpg
Image:Medabram.jpg
Image:Yomataya.jpg
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by King Legit (talk • contribs) 06:20, 25 February 2006.
:Thank you for pictures. You should always quote the source when uploading the images and give the right license. At the moment you have licensed all of these as you own personal work. This is fine if you took the photographs. However, if you found them on another website, you should give the URL of the page you got them from, so that we can check if they infringe copyright. If they are owned by someone else, and they don't give permission for their use here, then they'll have to be taken down. Please add the source and correct the license as appropriate now. If you don't do it I'll list them as unsourced images, and let them go through the deletion process. Still, nice images: just make sure they're yours to give. — Gareth Hughes 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some new pictures.--King Legit 00:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New pictures uploaded 

message: We should have one artile about Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Syriacs and mrege the information from Aramaeans and Chaldean into this article, then delete Aramaeans and Chaldean.  We will have one page for everything.  If you want to have 4 seperate pages, we will have to rebuild everything, this is the easiest solution. --Domthedude001 17:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Solution 

message: I mentioned before, when the articles on Chaldeans and Syriacs were merged here, that it would only be fair that we reconsider the name of this article. I still think that we should try to have a single article rather than contradictory articles for each separate group. However, I believe that we should have an article itle that is fair to all. Here are some suggestions. Please refrain from screaming and shouting, and discuss the options calmly. Of course, if you can think of another alternative, please mention it.
*Combine the names (possibly alphabetically):
**Assyrian, Chaldean and Syriac people
**Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs
**add Aramaean(s) to the list
*Find a descriptive term to cover everyone (key features are language and religion):
**Aramaic-speaking Christian people
**Aramaic-speaking Christians
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Assyrians call their language  Assyrian, what right do you have to impose the name aramean on them or their language. Why don't you tell the Spaniards and the French to change the name of their langauge to Latin? You guys sound like a bunch of smug elitists  who think you have the right to impose your opinions on others. The article about Assyrians is a travesty. Here is why.
<B>Misrepresentation of the Assyrian history by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</B>
Wikidepia the free encyclopedia seems to think of itself as a source of accurate  information but its entry about the Assyrians titled ‘Assyrian people’ can be described as a sham and contrary to the known facts. Its writer seems determent to  redefine Assyrians as Arameans implying that ancient Assyrians did not survive after their 612 B.C. defeat, a fallacy that long has been repudiated by the Assyrialogists and recent Archaeological discoveries. 
For example  prominent Assyrialogist , H.W.F. Saggs, wrote: "The destruction of the Assyrian empire did not wipe out its population. They were predominantly peasant farmers, and since Assyria contains some of the best wheat land in the Near East, descendants of the Assyrian peasants would, as opportunity permitted, build new villages over the old cities and carry on with agricultural life, remembering traditions of the former cities. After seven or eight centuries and various vicissitudes, these people became Christians."(H.W.F. Saggs, "The Might that Was Assyria" p. 290)  
The Wikidepia author begins to define the Christian Assyrians not by who they are, but by the  language they speak to direct the readers to the conclusion that they are not who they claim to be. Along the way he adds other bits of information to lead them to the conclusion  that Christian Assyrians  are  Arameans who after Christianity called themselves Suraye because the term Aramaye was equated with Paganism. He presents no historical evidence to support such opinion. This idea has been proposed by the pro Aramean faction but it is contrary to the known facts.
Ancient Assyrians like other nations of their time  were considered Pagans by the Jews and Christians. They were strongly vilified in the Old Testament for that very reason but Arameans were exulted because according to the Jews, Abraham, the father of their religion and by extension Christianity  “was  a wondering Aramean". Another fallacy advanced by the writer is that the term ‘Suraya’ or ‘Syrian’  was used only after Christianity because it had no connection  to the Pagans of pre Christianity and it meant Aramean.
We learn from  the fifth century B.C. herodotus that while Greeks called Assyrians ‘Surioi’  their neighbors i.e. Persians and the Armenians called them Assuri-os i.e. Assyrian, therefore one can only conclude that ‘Surioi’,  ‘Suraye’, and ‘Syrian’ meant primarily Assyrian and such terms were in use  centuries before Christianity. This fact has been  corroborated by Strabo, Justinus and other Greek and Persian historians. In fact Armenians still call  both the ancient  and the Christian Assyrians, Asori.  
The land west of Euphrates known today as Syria was the homeland of the Arameans. Its inhabitants were also called;  suros, Suroi, Assurios; by the Greeks equivliant to Syrian, Suraye, variations of Assyrian   because the region did not have a specific national identity  and had been part of the Assyrian empire for over 200 years.  Assyrians, Babylonians and later Persians called the region ‘Abar-Nahra’ or ‘beyond the river’. To claim that Suraya, Syrian or any variations thereof means Aramean and not Assyrian is to confuse the difference between the cause and affect and believe that dog’s tail wags him rather than the other way around.  
Simo Parpola presents a list of Greek and Roman writers who from the sixth century B.C. on refer to the Assyrians by the various versions of Greek pronunciation  of their name,  including ‘Suroi’ by the fourth century Aristoxennus  which seems similar to “Suryaye” used by the Eastern Assyrians also known as Nestorians, and Suryoye for the western Assyrians also known as ‘Jacobites’ and ‘Syrian Orthodox’..Suria another variation of Greek term for Assyrian  was used by the fourth century Cleitarchus, Suros was used by Cicero in the first century B.C. which attest to the fact that Suraya was in use long before Christianity [during Paganism] and meant Assyrian. (Simo Parpola, “Assyrian Identity in the Post Empire Time” Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol. 18 No. 2, 2004)  
If Christians of Mesopotamia  considered themselves Arameans there would have been no reason for them to call themselves by  any other name. As Christians they would have been proud to be known as Arameans  because it meant   they were related not only to the prophet Abraham also to Jesus who spoke their language. It is primarily because of these two Biblical points that the name Aramean has been preserved to this day. It was not  until 1952 that Aramean identity was attached to the Syrian Orthodox Church by its Patriarch Aphrem Barsoum who after World War One wanted to distance  his people from the Nestorian Church not only religiously also ethnically. However a substantial percentage  of that church’s members still identify themselves as Assyrians. For details about how and why the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch assumed the Aramean identity see;  Syrian Orthodox Church
Here is how the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Michael the great (1126-99) explained the difference  between Assyrians the primary inhabitants of mesopotamia and the Arameans who lived in Syria :
( In the first half of the 9th century "the Greeks were offending the Jacobites by saying: 'Your Syrian sect has no importance neither honor, and you did never have a kingdom, neither an honorable king'. the Jacobites answered them by Saying that even if their name is "Syrian", but they are originally "Assyrians" and they have had many honorable kings.... Syria is in the west of Euphrates, and its inhabitants who are talking our Aramaic language, and who are so-called 'Syrians', are only a part of the 'all', while the other part which was in the east of Euphrates, going to Persia, had many kings from Assyria and Babylon and Urhay. (History of Mikhael The Great" Chabot Edition (French) P: 750) as quoted by Addai Scher, Hestorie De La Chaldee Et De "Assyrie") This clearly dismisses the sometimes repeated refrain that Assyrian means Nestorian.)
The wikidepia’s article  Treats the Christian Assyrian history as a matter of opinion rather than fact.  Its writer implies that there were no  mention of the Assyrians until  700 years after their defeat when the term "Assyria" was used by the  the Roman Empire,  for northern  Mesopotamia, which became their  fifty first  province. Since he makes no mention of the inscriptions by the Persian kings who mention Assyria and Assyrians as part of their empire, long before Christianity,  one has to assume  he has no knowledge of such information or  intentionally prefers to  ignore it. In either case he proves himself not sufficiently knowledgeable  to pass judgement about the ethnicity of the Christian Assyrians. Here are the Persian references.
 
The Nagshe Rostam inscription by Darius (512-486) lists Assyrians as one of the national types of the Persian Empire. A reference to them reads as: "Iyam Asuryah", "this is an Assyrian" which is very similar to the term "Suryah" a name christian Assyrians have identified themselves by. (Sukumar Sen, "Old Persian Inscriptions of the Achamenian Emperors," University of Calcutta 1941 p. 107) 
Another Behistun inscription by  Darius in the beginning of his rule lists 23 countries as part of his empire including: "Persis, Huza (Elam), Babiru (Babylon), Athura (Assyria)...."(Josef Wiesehofer, Azizeh Azodi Trans., "Ancient Persia From 550 BC to 650 AD, I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1969.)  
In an inscription at Susa Darius writes; "The cedar timber, this -- a mountain named Lebanon -- from there was brought. The Assyrian people, it brought it to Babylon; from Babylon the Carians and the Ionians brought it to Susa. The yakâ-timber was brought from Gandara and from Carmania."  Old Persian Texts:   Asori  
"Proclaims Xerxes, the king: (486-466 "By the favor of Ahura Meazda; these are the people / countries of which I was king of....Persia, Media, Elam, Armenia, Drangiana, parhia, Aria, Bactri a, Sogdia, Choresmia, Babylonia, ASSYRIA, Stagydia, Lydia, Egypt......" (Josef Wiesehofer, Azizeh Azodi Trans., "Ancient Persia From 550 BC to 650 AD, I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1969.) 
 
In a Trilingual Persepolis inscription ARTAXERXES II (c. 436 - 358 BC) OR III ( BC. to 338 BC.). among the twenty throne-bearers of various nationalities Assyrian representative is identified as; “This is the Assyrian'. http://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm 
Assyrians are also mentioned by the Persian  religious book of 'Zand-i Vohuman Yasht' in the Pahlavi language. In one section it accuses the Greeks (Yunan) who ruled in Asuristan (330-145 B.C.) were slaying the [Asori] Assyrian people and destroying their abode. Perisan  One has to wonder  what kind of credibility a writer could have who is unaware of such evidences and without cause wants to redefine  Assyrians as ‘Arameans’?  Wikipedia irresponsible entry could lead to further antagonism between the pro-Aramean faction and the rest of the Assyrians.
The fact that inhabitants of Mesopotamia spoke the Aramaic language does not make them  Arameans because it was spoken by other none Aramean nations  such as the Jews, the Arabs (Nabattians), the Egyptian Christians and later by the christians of India and other nations to a lesser degree. In fact it was the ancient Assyrians who elevated the Aramaic language to an international level and promoted its use. If nationality of a people is determent solely by the language it speaks then one has to conclude that the entire population of Southern America has descended from  the  Spaniard  or portuguese since those are the languages spoken in the region. By such logic all the nations who presently speak languages derived from latin have to be considered nothing other than Romans.  
Another example of the wikipedia willingness to manufacture excuses to redefine Christian Assyrians as  “Arameans” is evident in the following quote by the writer; “ according to Tsereteli, a Georgian equivalent of "Assyrians" appears in Georgian documents from the 18th century, designating Eastern Arameans”. 
Nowhere in his writing Konstantin Tesereteli equates Assyrians with the  Eastern Arameans.  In fact he begins  his article by writing “As early as the 6th century [A.D.] Assyrian priests ventured to Georgia for the purpose of founding cloisters.” He goes on to mention other references to Assyrians by the Georgians in later centuries.
See; (Konstantin Tsereteli, Assyrians in the Correspondence of Irakli II, King of Georgia” Journal of The Assyrian Academic Society, Vol. VIII, No.2, 1944 pp.4-11)   According to him a  document prepared by the court of Irakli II in 1769 reported that “Millions of Assyrians live in the mountains and  Valley which straddle Persia and the Ottoman Empire.” Ibid. 
The Vatican documents of the 16th century refer to the Christians of Mesopotamia both Nestorians and later Chaldeans as Assyrians. Syriac writers during the christian era also have identified their  people as Assyrian side by side with Suraya. The wikidepia writer however  makes no mention of hundreds of other  references to the Assyrians by historians of  many nationalities during all centuries from the fall of Nineveh to date as documented in a  recent book by Fred Aprim.  See additional references to Assyrians in all centuries at: refrences to Assyrians
In conclusion the Wikidepia article about Assyrians is full of erroneous claims  attesting to the insufficiency of its writer’s  knowledge about the subject or his  desire to describe Assyrians as Arameans contrary to the known facts.  All posting intended to inform the Wikipedia  moderator  of  such inaccuracies were promptly removed and no effort was made to correct the very obvious errors. Even at the  ‘Talk Page’, opposing comments were deleted as soon as posted even though the Page is  supposedly intended to give others a chance  to critic the article.  Treating the Christian Assyrian identity as a matter of opinion or personal  interpretation can hardly be considered fair or proper way of writing history.  The present wikidepia article titled “Assyrian People”  betrays the lack of knowledge of its writer and reveals his unshakable prejudices against the Assyrians and their heritage.  
wm warda
I have no real preference here, and I'm not sure whether the guidelines for ethnic groups encourage adjectives or adjective people. However, the descriptive term (Aramaic-speaking Christians) could include the Melkites of Ma`loula (speaking Western Neo-Aramaic) and Maronites (historically speaking Aramaic, but all Arabic today). What are you thoughts? — Gareth Hughes 18:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion on including Maronites and Maloula, is stretching it. These people for the most part do not see themselves as being one with Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriacs. So, to be honest with you, I strongly dicourage silly made up titles like "Aramaic Speaking Christians". I do like this "Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs - Dont know why the "people" is needed to be added. Aramaic, as I mentioned should not be given the same status as the big 3, since only a couple thousand consider themselfs Aramiac today (comparing to million of each sect of Assyrian, Chaldean, Syraic.) So in conlucsion, I do like "Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriacs". These Maronites, Maloula, and Arameans, can be mentioned in this page, but should not be put in the same level and Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs, for the reason I mentioned. (note how we have not included Maronites and Maloulas in the population statistics for a reason) Chaldean 23:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually meant to say that the Aramaic-speaking Christians would involve other groups, rather than suggesting that this what we necessarily want to do. WikiProject Ethnic groups has reached no consensus on whether to use the plural form or the word people, so, if we are using a long title, perhaps we should go for the shorter form: Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs. — Gareth Hughes 23:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it needs a vote if everyone can agree in the first place. Voting might actually be devisive. At the moment, it looks like Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs is generally acceptable. If it's not, people are not voicing their concerns. — Gareth Hughes 19:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibilities for a rename 

message: I wouldn't mind Aramaic speaking people or possibly Semitic Christians. Assyro-Chaldo-Syriac people is how the US Census has it. I would assume because of witnessing some of the mindless babel similar to the likes that we've had here.King Legit
Semitic Christians would be very general and could include even Arab Christians such as the Ghassanids at least in the Historic part of it. It could aslo link to Coptic Christians as relatives.
Assyro-Chaldo-Syriac people sounds good or just simply Assyro-Chaldo-Syriacs.
----
The problem I have with naming it Assyro-Chaldo-Syriac is that it's a "made-up" term. "Aramean, Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac," although long, at this point seems to be the most suitable name. --3345345335534 00:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Name 

message: This article is really starting to drag, it's gotten so long I wouldn't read it if I wasn't Assyrian. Seriously this need summarization and a reduction of redundency!!! User:King Legit
: The identity paragraph is way to long, we should have an introductery to that paragraph and dump the rest in a new page (kinda like how the Turkish people has a summary of the history of the people.) This page has gotten way too long.  Chaldean 03:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just when things were getting better... 

message: Stop calling chaldeans "assyrians" or converted away from their ethnicity, or not descended from ancient kassites but assyrians. You and many g-d damn assyrians should accept the fact that chaldeans today are kassites in the past. read http://www.chaldeansonline.net/chald.html and http://www.chaldeansonline.net/Banipal/English/hannona.html. you damn racist assyrians should stop crying and discriminating against true blooded kassites!
::You should read it and you'll clearly see that it doesn't say that. Learn to speak without cussing. You're obviously frustrated because you can't get your point accross. User:King Legit
::Is it too much to ask the person who posted that site to read what is says? :) 
::Garzo, can you please keep an eye on Chaldean extremist that change this page (I caught it after no one did.) And also Benne, the person who terrorises this page when no one is keeping an eye on him. Chaldean 03:01, 11 March 2006. (UTC)
:::Your edit simply doesn't belong in the introduction, it should be in the Assyrian section, where I put it now. This article is not about the people identifying themselves as "Assyrians" only, but about Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs.
:::I deleted "Assyrian is what is primarily used throughout history (up until 1445) when referring to the Christians of northern Mesopotamia." I doubt this is true. Please provide some reference for this statement before you put it back.
:::I think it's about time to move this page to Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldaeans, Syriacs or Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs. The current title is misleading.--Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Benne, the only thing misleading is your manipulation of facts.--King Legit 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop calling chaldeans "assyrians" 

message: The article is entitled "Assyria and Syria: Synonyms" by Professor Richard Frye (founder of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard).
http://jaas.org/edocs/v11n2/frye.pdf
Perhaps mentioning this in the Wiki article?
Gms 10:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assyria and Syria/Syriac

message: I don't want to give up, but you Assyrians keep on believing in your ignorant anti-Chaldean beliefs and post it up on this website that doesn't need to have truth, but free-speech. This is where the Assyrian racists can say what they want about Chaldeans and not be persecuted for false information, like if they would propose this information to the Vatican, the United Nations, or Britannica, who would never accept these false statements. I'll stick to websites that post up truth instead of racist falsehoods.
:I would describe the above statement as generally unhelpful and quite inflammatory. — Gareth Hughes 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything on Wikipedia is False 

message: I saw this:  
I found one strange statement at wikipedia/germany which says, the chaldean are arammeans, hääääääääääääää? 
Benne that extremist thinks he can fool the whole world. I wish I knew German so that I could see what you are writing just for laughter. You obviously think anyone that speaks aramiac is Aramaen, and what you have done with other wikipedia languanges and what you wrote in the [Aramean]'s modern page proved this. 
We need to get the facts straight and try to get the world's trust in wikipedia again. This is why, this Aramaean nonsense needs to be removed from this page immeditly. 
To top the confusion, we got our buddy Garth thinking the term Assyrian just popped out of nowhere only 200 years ago. Chaldean 17:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People are starting to think Wikipedia is a joke

message: I think of converting to Judaism. At least they have Israel and can agree to what race they are. --King Legit 18:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Times Like This... 

message: Is this not an ethnicity page anymore? Rather then a religious or a language one? If so, then why have you not included Maronites and Melkites in the first sentence of the page? Chaldean 13:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethnicity is all about identity. While there is obviously more to this identity than religion and language, these are the two major planks of the identity. For example, the Mhalmoye are only barely considered to be Suriani because there is evidence that their ancestors were Syriac-speaking Christians. It is true that some Maronites and Melkites do identify themselves as Aramaeans or Syriacs, but by no means all of them. Both groups have had quite different cultural heritages. — Gareth Hughes 17:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to have trouble keeping with the argument: please read it more carefully. I said that there are some Maronites and Melkites who choose to identify as Aramaean or Syriac, they do not choose to identify as Assyrian. And I said that because of this there is good reason that they are not included. Many West Syriacs choose to identify as Assyrian, andthey should not be separated from other West Syriacs who choose not to identify as Assyrian. I hope that is more clear. This is a complicated subject so please do read posts carefully before dismissing them. — Gareth Hughes 18:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So What kind of a page is this?

message: Only troops connected with other current superpowers, even if they were called assyrian levites and so on.
Michael 08:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  we never have had an army 

message: Do you wish to be Royals or subjects of the Royals? That's what Arameans were to the Assyrians, simple scribes and craftsmen. You prefer to be descended of Royalty or Artisans? You decide and when you let the world know and one day after the formation of an Assyrian state you may be once again loyal scribes to the ruling classes. Peasants will always be peasants. A cursed bloodline is cursed until the end of that bloodline. Chaldean is not an ethnicity, they were an Aramean tribe that fought against the Assyrians with the help of their sworn enemies, the MEDES. So you decide what you are. Are you an Assyrian or part of retched cursed bloodline doomed for all eternity. Remember the fall of Babylon lead to the end of rule for all Assyro-Babylonians thanks to the Chaldeans.
----
One cannot just "change" or "decide" what they believe is their ethnicity... --3345345335534 00:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To my people, THE ASSYRIANS. 

message: No linguistic ties and no genetic evidence I've heard of. You'd be better of saying that they are related to the peoples they live amongst such as Arabs. Tombseye 04:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek as a related ethnic group is a bit of a stretch

message: First thing is first: Be fair by reading my entire post and then reply
I don't think it's fair to impose a name on people and expect them to just "take it".  If there are people here who identify with the Aramaen identity, let them make their own Aramean page, same for Chaldeans, and Syriacs.  We can sit here and argue all day but I don't think its fair to impose identities on other people.
If you all want to go on the ill-advised route of including all possible synonyms (e.g. Melkite, Maronite, Yezidi, etc. etc.), this article will turn into a circus.
The quality of this page about Assyrians is degrading day by day.  Look at how nice the page about Arabs and Kurds are: no identity crisis there!  Let's work on turning this joke of an article into a respectable page on the modern Assyrian identity and create other appropriate articles to deal with the challenges facing Assyrians in the present.
My suggestions:
:make this an article about Assyrians only.
:Research our pre-Christian identity (a topic area which is clearly lacking).
::See how these divisions arose.
:allow free development of the other "synonyms" as the users see fit.
:: I'm sure Wikipedia visitors would be genuinly interested in people who consider themselves ethnically Arameans, Chaldeans, or Syriacs.
::Make a separate article about this identity crisis some Assyrians seem to have and we can analyze that issue there.
Sorry to introduce Social Darwinism to the debate but I think it's time we allow allow natural selection to work its wonders and allow the stronger identity to persist and the weaker identities to whither away and assimilate.  Good luck.
Sincerely yours,
Ashour 03:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ashour, I will be very suprised if the person in charge of the page replies to you. He has taken a stance and he has made his final decision. He is just waiting for more support for his idea (ie unity amongs Syriac-speaking people under the "Christian umbrella") I have repeatdly told him that this is not the page to do it, as this page is about ONE ethnic group. I have tried to reason and compremise and offered a page where we can talk about the similarities (or basically what he wants, a page that showes all Syraic speaking Christians being under one umbrella) in the Neo Aramaic speaking people. Is Greek people anti-Greek? Is Italian people anti-Italian? Is Russian people anti-Russian? This is the only ethnic page that basically embrasses its own self.  Here is the problem; he refuses the Assyrians to trace there roots back to the Empire days. Tell me Garth, how have the Greeks proven to the world that they are inheriters of ancient Greece? What about the Armenians? We know that they (Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians) live where the ancient people used to live respectively. We know that they (Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians) speak the same language as that of the ancient people respectively. So then if we are going to refuse Assyrians rights to claim there ancestry, then why do we "ok" Greeks and Armenians? What do they have that we dont? For God's sake, wikipedia allows Slavic people to call themselves "Macedonian" and we have Garth declining the Assyrian heritage. Then tell me Garth, what are we? Are we Arabs? Turkish? Iranian? Or gypsies?  Chaldean 13:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible solution, please reply with your thoughts 

message: :Here is a plan:
::*Chaldeans Redirects to Chaldean
::*Chaldean has the  box at the bottum of the page.
::*Assyrian people changes to Assyrians and it only bolds Assyrians (it may talk about Syriacs and Chaldeans later in the article)
::*Syriac gets their page back.. they should have their own article.
:I'm sure this plan will be accepted by 99% of the people.  Pjacobi is probably that 1% that will not like it.  It will make sense to do it this way.  However, Pjacobi sure doesn't like it this way.
:I also tried to merge all of them into one article, but that sure didnt work, so now I'm trying this new way above and Pjacobi isn't quite making it work.  It should be one way or the other: 1. All four articles be merged into one. 2. There should be four seperate articles.  Pjacobi seems he wants it like this: 3. Some will get articles and some wont and they will look like they aren't even relevent to eachother.  Well, Right now I want to try 2 because 1 didn't work and 3 is not acceptible.  The end.
--Domthedude001 19:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm rather agnostic which solution is employed, as I don't know much about the topic. I'm only enforcing policy regarding the process and technical issues. --Pjacobi 20:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Best Plan 

message: ::The following text was added in the middle of the Wikipedia:NPOV Dispute article by a user with the IP 67.136.138.156 a few minutes ago. I haven't even read it, other than to skim enough to see that it seems to belong here. Cheers! --ByeByeBaby 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well these populations do speak an Aramean dialect, at least for those who were not Arabized during the XXth century, and this supports the author claims. --70.52.24.89 00:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute