Jump to content

Talk:Assyrian people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tisqupnaia2010 (talk | contribs) at 22:32, 18 April 2010 (→‎Trial Naming Poll). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archive
Archives

Assyrian population on info-box

the 11-12 million population number is incorrect, the correct number is 5 million ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 05:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC) user:Assyrio


You didnt include the syriac people, alos the syriac orthodox and the syriac maronite churches. 8.85 million Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people are right.

Look here:

3,5 million members of the Syriac Maronite church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronite_Church 2,25 million members of the Syriac Orthodox Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Orthodox_Church 500.000 members of the Assyrian Church of the East http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church_of_the_East 2.5 million members of the Chaldean Catholic Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Catholic_Church 100.000 members of the Syriac Catholic Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Catholic_Church

well, I guess we can include them in the number, but the Maronite churches don't exactly designate themselves as Assyrian/Chaldean or Aramean, nor Syriac. I thought the population number was for those who self-designate themselves as Assyrian, Chaldean, or Syriac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assyrio (talk • contribs) 03:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelt Word

At one point in this article the word "Calendar" is misspelt as "Calender". It's under the festival category as "on the Julian CalendEr". It even links to the Julian Calendar article where it is spelt correctly as "Julian CalendAr". The article is locked so I can't fix it... :,( Gilly of III (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Cuisine

Who removed Assyrian Cuisine from the culture section of the article? --Sharru Kinnu III (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Population

Hello, i want ot say that the population numbers arent realy right,its many of them wrong. Can any one correct this look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_diaspora http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrier/syrianer/kald%C3%A9er —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvis214 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian (Chaldean) People

Change the name from "Assyrian people" to "Chaldean People" Assyrians Disappeared or Andtheroa snice 330 b.c

1- However Nestorians were Not Assyrians because Chaldeans Annihilated all Assyrians in the North Iraq (Nicholas Bocetkit) in his book (the civilization of Iraq and its effects, p. 122. and the rest of Assyrians took them to Babylion by Chaldeans,

2- In 539 Persian takeover Babil (Babylion) and let those few Assyrians (about 2000) back to Ashour.

3- Persian were using Assyrians in there Army, which they knew it by the name (Assyrian battalions).

4- the Many wars which the Persians Fought made Assyrians angry Cause they lost alot of their young Youth.

5- In 331 Alexander the Great went to Iraq and Assyrians welcomed him, and this is the Last thing we know about those People who called Assyrians after that the Just Disappeared or Andtheroa.

6- Nobody were called Assyrian between 331b.c and 1914 a.c

7- Nestorians was alot arbs Nestorians in parts like arb gulf, Are the Arbs Assyrians ??

8- Assyrians between 800 to 626 had many wars with Kingdoms of the Chaldean and took about 350,000- 5000,000 Chaldean to the North Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BassamAllen (talk • contribs) 09:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chaldean Catholic page can be found at Chaldean Christians. Iraqi (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The people of Mesopotamia (Aram Nahrin), Lebanon and Syria (Aram)are the Aramean people and not pseudo("Assyrian"). The Assyrians no longer exists. The Assyrians are extinct. The today's "Assyrians" (Nestorians, East-Arameans) are ethnic Arameans. The Member of the Oriental Syriac (or Syrian) Churches are ethnic Arameans (self-designation Syriac) and the Language are Aramaic (Syriac).

The Anglican missionaries forced the Arameans who accepted them to believe that they are Assyrian.

Both historical claims are absolutely false and totally disastrous because they caused a trichotomy among the Arameans, shaping three national groups of the same nation, namely

1. those who rejecting the Western European fallacies preserved their Aramaean identity,

2. those who believe that they are Chaldaean, and

3. those who believe that they are Assyrian.

In fact, the Aramaeans are not the minority in the aforementioned area of the Asiatic Middle East. They are the absolute majority in terms of ethnicity because the Arabic speaking majority are not Arabs but Aramaeans, who gradually throughout centuries got arabized because they had adhered to Islam. But their arabization occured only at the linguistic level, because at the level of ethnic amalgamation there could not be any comparison between the Aramaeans and the Arabs at the times of the Prophet Muhammad as the former outnumbered the latter 20: 1 under most conservative estimates.

When the Catholic missionaries together with France in the 16th century succeed to brainwash a part of the East- Aramean nation and gave them the name "Chaldeans" and named their church "Chaldean church of Babylon", Great Britain could not permit to lag behind. Therefore, the English diplomats and Anglican missionaries started, as a countermove, to play the same game in the 19th century, now with the remaining part of the East- Aramean Nestorian tribes of Urmia (Iran) and Hakkaria (Turkey) who were brainwashed to call themselves "Assyrians" which later manifested itself in a horrible and perverse form of fanaticism which resulted amongst others in history distortion. Everywhere in the Aramean ecclesiastical and secular books they exchanged the words "Aramean", "Aramaic", "Syrians" for "Assyrian". Aramaic language they changed in "Assyrian" language, Aramean people in "Assyrian" people, etc.. etc.. Thus a kind of spiritual genocide took here place.

Actually Assyrians were identifying under the Assyrian name, there is proof such as the Historian john Speed who lived during 1500AD, his map he recorded of turkey and its minorities clearly shows "Assyrians" living in the Area, now "Aramean" or "Chaldeans" as these new names were adopted by the churches. http://www.raremaps.com/maps/large/17920.jpg Aturaya (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aramean people are correct

The people of Mesopotamia (Aram Nahrin), Lebanon and Syria (Aram)are the Aramean people and not pseudo("Assyrian"). The Assyrians no longer exists. The Assyrians are extinct. The today's "Assyrians" (Nestorians, East-Arameans) are ethnic Arameans. The Member of the Oriental Syriac (or Syrian) Churches are ethnic Arameans (self-designation Syriac) and the Language are Aramaic (Syriac).

The Anglican missionaries forced the Arameans who accepted them to believe that they are Assyrian.

Both historical claims are absolutely false and totally disastrous because they caused a trichotomy among the Arameans, shaping three national groups of the same nation, namely

1. those who rejecting the Western European fallacies preserved their Aramaean identity,

2. those who believe that they are Chaldaean, and

3. those who believe that they are Assyrian.

In fact, the Aramaeans are not the minority in the aforementioned area of the Asiatic Middle East. They are the absolute majority in terms of ethnicity because the Arabic speaking majority are not Arabs but Aramaeans, who gradually throughout centuries got arabized because they had adhered to Islam. But their arabization occured only at the linguistic level, because at the level of ethnic amalgamation there could not be any comparison between the Aramaeans and the Arabs at the times of the Prophet Muhammad as the former outnumbered the latter 20: 1 under most conservative estimates.

When the Catholic missionaries together with France in the 16th century succeed to brainwash a part of the East- Aramean nation and gave them the name "Chaldeans" and named their church "Chaldean church of Babylon", Great Britain could not permit to lag behind. Therefore, the English diplomats and Anglican missionaries started, as a countermove, to play the same game in the 19th century, now with the remaining part of the East- Aramean Nestorian tribes of Urmia (Iran) and Hakkaria (Turkey) who were brainwashed to call themselves "Assyrians" which later manifested itself in a horrible and perverse form of fanaticism which resulted amongst others in history distortion. Everywhere in the Aramean ecclesiastical and secular books they exchanged the words "Aramean", "Aramaic", "Syrians" for "Assyrian". Aramaic language they changed in "Assyrian" language, Aramean people in "Assyrian" people, etc.. etc.. Thus a kind of spiritual genocide took here place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.33.210 (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see (and read) names of Syriac Christians for this question. --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


change the name from Assyrians to Arameans. Aramean are the correct name. "Assyrians" is wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.33.210 (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


STOP the PROPAGANDA. Wikipedia is not for propaganda. historically and ethnically correct name is ARAMEAN. read history books. read books of our fathers.

I ask for a correction. Please change the name right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.25.228 (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the Map of John Speed clearly shows that people in that region were identifying with the Assyrian name, not Aramean, this is a false church name given to the Western Assyrians who belong to the Syriac Orthodox Church, the map is of Turkey year 1500AD and it clearly shows Assyrians as an ethnic minority living there alongside others,however no "Aramean" name is mentioned on this map. http://www.raremaps.com/maps/large/17920.jpg Also the ancient arameans were a tribe, not an empire, they were also assimilated into the Assyrian empire and became Assyrians, You "Arameans" want everyone to call themselves Aramean because they speak Aramaic? that makes no sense its like going up to an Australian and telling them they cant call themselves Australian and they should call themselves English because they speak English!, sounds ridiculous doesn't it. Aturaya (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Since August 2009 the article has been tagged to be in need of expert advice. Needless to say that is should also be tagged NPOV, since it's very title is disputed. People may have grown weary of this discussion, but as long as this issue has not been solved, it will resurface every now and then.

Therefore I suggest to finally request an expert (or a few) to discuss the matter, and to propose a title that will satisfy Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Because the current title, even though it seems to be supported by a majority of those who engaged in a poll at some point of time, is heavily disputed and not neutral. This disputed should however not be resolved by democratic measures or statistics, but by applying to academical sources, most of which do not provide support for the current title. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Assyrian, Chaldean & Eastern Syriac People

I think the page Assyrian people is in detail correct.

Perhaps though, the name should be changed to Chaldo-Assyrian in order to preserve harmony.

The term Assyrian has been continually used since the fall of the Assyrian Empire.

The Persians had a province called Athura or Assuristan (Assyria), and Assyrian people with Assyrian names are attested throughout the period of Persian rule.

In addition, people such as Tatian and Lucian (who lived in the 2nd Century AD referred to themselves as Assyrians.

The Romans had a province called Assyria in 114AD.

Lucian described himself as - "an Assyrian ... still barbarous in speech and almost wearing a jacket in the Assyrian style. " Another second-century writer, a certain Iamblichus who wrote a novel set in Babylonia, "was Assyrian by race on both his father's and mother's side, not in the sense of the Greeks who have settled in Syria, but of the native ones, familiar with the Syriac language and living by their customs. "

Furthermore, typically Assyrian (and Babylonian) names have been recorded since BEFORE the British supposedly resurrected the term Assyrian, showing that an Assyrian-Mesopotamian conciousness was alive and well long before any contact with the West.

All this clearly shows a continual identity, unbroken through time.

The term "Chaldean" however, in modern terms, is purely theological. It was the term bestowed upon those Assyrians who converted to Catholicism in the 16th Century. Prior to this, no one used the term to describe themselves, nor did any external people use the term to describe the Aramaic speaking Christians of Mesopotamia.

Essentially, the Aramaic speaking Christians of Iraq, Iran, South East Turkey and North East Syria are essentially the SAME PEOPLE, descendants of the ancient Mesopotamians (Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Babylon,the Amorites Chaldea and Eastern Aramea).

With Syriacs, the line is less clear, the West Syriacs are likely pure Arameans, whereas the Eastern ones are more likely to be Assyrian (or Chaldo-Assyrian).

Differences between self designation of the people is more to do with Theological differences and NOT ethnic differences, and also due to external political pressure. Ottoman, Arab and Kurdish interests are served greatly by dividing the Ancient Mesopotamians (Assyrians/ChaldeansEast Syriacs), and causing frictions between them.

I do feel that all of these points should be pointed out.

In addition, it does appear to be a MINORITY of Chaldean Catholics and Eastern Syriacs who wish to dispute their ethnic commonality with Assyrians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term Syrian or Syriac is a Greek bastardisation of Assyrian, the term Syria evolved out of the term Assyria, though this does NOT mean that modern Syrians or Syriacs are Assyrians. Some are, however.

Syriac is a term used by Syriac Christians, it is not just a religious term, but an ethnic one, designed to differentiate them from Muslims and Arabs.

Some Syriacs regard themselves as ethnically Assyrian, others as Arameans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Could you please provide the names of sources, such as reliable books or articles, which we can use to verify this information, per Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability? --Elonka 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much comes from the studies of Simo Parpola, also from recorded names for Assyria in Persian, Roman and Greek records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well basically the main portion of Assyrians that call themselves "Aramean" are from Turkey, they only started calling themselves Aramean after their church brainwashed them into doing so, however alot of their Church members do identify as Assyrians, for example the Syriac formed club of Assyriska is very pro-Assyrian, also if you check the map of John Speed you can see the ethnic minorities in turkey at the time of 1500AD and there is no mention of the word "Aramean" even when they claim to have such large numbers, however the name Assyrian appears clearly on this map. Aturaya (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the "Assyrian" people, this is the Aramean (Syriac or Suryoyo) people

This article is completely wrong. The Assyrians are do not exist anymore, Assyrians are extinct. There never existed a people called Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac, It is simply the Aramaic people. The (East)-Arameans call themselves as "Assyrians" are not (ancient) Assyrians, There are all Arameans ("East-Arameans"). This article needs to be changed, its propaganda. Is not relevant to see them as Assyrians. If they then see themselves as Assyrians they must make a new article by seeing themselves as Assyrians, but they are not Assyrians. You can not say that the Syriac (Aramean) people and the Assyrian people are the same. Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac, this nation does not exist, not today and not in the history. It must be reported about the truth. You can not integrate the Syriac-Aramean people in this Article. The Arameans (Syriacs, Suryoye) are a separate and independent nation, that has nothing to do with the Assyrians. Please delete this article and separate the truth with the lies. It is not the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people, it is the Aramean people.

Historian John Speed created a map of Turkey in the 1600s, in this map he noted the Ethnic minorities that lived within the Ottoman empire at the time, one of the minorities was Assyrian http://www.raremaps.com/maps/large/17920.jpg there is a link to the map, please explain why there is no Aramean name there, this was the 1600s remember and this is apparently the homeland of the "Arameans" yet they are no where to be found, explain this?, before you make wild fantasy claims about Assyrians and your psuedo-aramean nation, back it up with facts, not just your opinion. Aturaya (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is only a map :D this is a History map (look persians, arabian, assyrians...) I can also see Egyptians in the map :) This is not a ethnic people map :D Why I can not see the Turks, Greeks, Armenians and other peoples in this map? :D sorry but you are a fake-assyrian-nation :D Assyrians do not exist today, but you already know ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.50.87 (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question wasn't related to Armenians, they have nothing to do with our identity, i asked you why was the name Assyrian mentioned instead of Aramean, you say that us Assyrians are a "Fake nation" and our name originated in the 1900s however the Assyrian name was used not the pesudo-Aramean name?, Its only a map right? by only a historian?, do you want us to invent you a time machine and go back 400 years to show you people by the name of Assyrians inhabited that area?. Im sorry but i can't do that, proof such as Maps and historians is good enough for Wikipedia don't you agree?, also this is Wikipedia not msn or facebook there's no need for smileys such as ;)/:)/:D, its only making you look immature while were having a serious discussion. Also Greeks, Arabians, Egyptians are also on the map, this map must of mentioned the people who had significan populations in the Area, thus why Assyrians are mentioned their cause we have ancient roots there that go back thousands of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aturaya (talk • contribs) 15:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arameans of Aram Nahrin (greek. Mesopotamia)

There must be a new section about the The Indigenous Aramean people of Aram-Nahrin (Mesopotamia, Iraq).

The Aramean people of Mesopotamia are the indigenous people of Aram-Nahrin. The Aramean people, not to be confused with 'Armenians', speak Aramaic, the language spoken by Abraham, Moses and Jesus Christ. Today's Arameans are divided into various denominations and called by different names.


The culture, history, language and faith of the Aramean people have attracted the attention of many people including scientists, artists, linguistics, clergy and laymen. The Italian film producer Giacomo Pezalli, for example, was so impressed by the history of one of the oldest existing Semitic people in the world that he decided to make a film about the Aramean people entitled The Hidden Pearl: The Aramaic Heritage of the Syrian Orthodox Church. The script for the film was written, amongst others, by professor Sebastian P. Brock, a professor at Oxford University. Professor Brock specializes in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syrian Orthodox Church history. This marvellous and breathtaking scientific multimedia project can serve as a source of information for those who are interested in the culture, religion and history of one of the oldest Semitic people of the Middle East, who have been living in this part of the world for thousands of years.

Aramean people and Christianity

After the coming of Jesus Christ, the Arameans of Aram-Naharaim accepted the teachings of Christ and established, together with the apostles of Jesus Christ and the converted Jews, the Syrian Church of Antioch, the second Patriarchy after Jerusalem, where, for the first time, the followers of Jesus Christ were called “Christians” (Acts 11:26). This church was the mother of all the Churches – and the first Church established outside Israel – whose Patriarch currently resides in Damascus , Syria .

The Semitic Arameans underwent a change of name after they had embraced Christianity and were then called “Syrians”, in order to be distinguished from the Arameans, who were not converted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.33.210 (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but no thank you. We have had these name issues once and internationally the Suraya-Suroyo people are known as "Assyrians" in English and e.g. as "Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs" in countries as Sweden.--Yohanun (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are actually known as "Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs" in English, in "countries such as" the USA. They are not known as "Aramaeans" in English, you are right on that. The Aramaeans of antiquity are discussed under the title Aramaeans. The Aramaeanist narrative of Syriac origins is discussed under Aramaeanism, just like the Assyrianist narrative is found under Assyrianism. People should learn to read before complaining. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of talk page contents

The vandalism of this talk page has got to stop. People, whoever they are, no matter what their point of view, have the right to make comments about possible changes to the article. I know the name of this article has been discussed at some considerable length, you only need to look at the archives to see that, but new comments should be replied to in good faith by directing people to the past discussion in the archive and not simply be deleted as "propoganda", "unrelated", or "not for posting articles" - though the last is sort of true... discuss the article, don't post complete new versions of the article. Remember, Wikipedia should work by consensus and is not a battleground. Astronaut (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for that Astronaut, it was frustrating for me to be putting forward facts and stating my opinion to see others just delete it, i think some people here are scared of facts, when you present it to them, they try to delete it and act like it was never there, they were quick to delete my comments however no one has yet to reply on this issue of Assyrian/Aramean where the Assyrian name is mentioned and the "Aramean" name isn't during the 1600s in Turkey the mother land of the so called "Arameans". Im still waiting for a mature reply which doesn't consists of deleting my comments, once again thank you for pointing this out, deleting of others comments must stop. Aturaya (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you must keep discussing the naming issue, at least try to be aware of the facts that have already been established and discussed. Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. We have an article dedicated to the naming thing, at names of Syriac Christians. Anyone discussing this needs to read that first, and then take their concerns to Talk:Names of Syriac Christians, not to Talk:Assyrian people. --dab (𒁳) 08:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

population

Hello,

if you inclued the syriac people in this article so you have do take they with in the population numbers.

So if syriacs and Assyrians are the same people, you have to inclued the population of the syriacs in this article too. So the Total populattion of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people are more than 13 million and not 3.3 million.

ca. 4 million members of the syriac maronite church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronite_Church ca. 6 million members of the Syriac Orthodox Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Orthodox_Church ca. 500.000 members of the Assyrian Church of the East http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church_of_the_East ca. 2.5 million members of the Chaldean Catholic Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Catholic_Church ca. 100.000 members of the Syriac Catholic Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Catholic_Church -- Elvis214 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Fascism

I have noticed that many people kept on mentioning this page as a reference to the naming of our people. Even though I am open to a name that represents all of us, I can't tolerate this egregious fascist Assyrian naming of our people. You have to understand that Chaldeans, Assyrians, and Syriacs are different denominations and of different ethnicity. These people identify themselves as different, and others identify them as different. The Congress of the United States of America itself recognizes them as separate minorities[1]. Needless to say, Assyrians have been, alone, spamming the web including Wikipedia with the idea that all three ethnic group are of Assyrian origin. This Assyrian Fascism have been used for years and it is based on the simple principle of: "Lie until the other people believe you". It is here where I should mention that Saddam Hussein himself used this kind of fascism to force all the minorities in Iraq to accept the Arab ethnicity as their own. Even though I am sure that Wikipedia will not prefer to be part of this Assyrian Fascism, I do believe that it is the duty of the other minorities to ensure that Assyrian Fascists will not get the chance to keep on lying. From the comments posted in this discussion, I can see that it is quite obvious that the other minorities are not buying into this Assyrian Fascism. They have clearly stated their objection to the Assyrian Fascists who are forcing a foreign name over the names of the other minorities. I believe that it is time for Wikipedians to eliminate Assyrian Fascism from their website.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equal or nothing

Dear Assyrian Nationalists,
As eager as I am to have our people united under one name, I would have to disagree with you on the naming of your article. It is quite obvious that you're biased toward a single name to represent all three ethnic groups. Moreover, beside the first sentence, the name "Chaldean" in the common name is never mentioned. You kept on saying "Assyrian/Syriac", which is perfectly fine with me. I totally acknowledge your right to write an article about your people; however, you shouldn't include others under an article that doesn't represent them. It is for this that I removed the word "Chaldean" from this article. Hopefully, one day, we will be able to create an article to represent us all equally. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This articles contains much about Chaldean Catholics (of course, they're a big part of the peoplpe). The proposed Chaldean flag can even be found here. Just because "Assyrian people" is the common name for the people (one ethnic group, not three) does mean we're going to remove everything saying Chaldean. Please, do not remove things from the article if the discussion about it have not been finished. Shmayo (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim they are one ethnic group is Assyrian Nationalism POV. You can't include people in an article with a misleading name. Renaming this article is the right thing to do. If you really care about all the ethnic groups and you're not just pushing for your POV, you'll rename the article A/C/S and have all three redirect here.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which way is it Assyrian Nationalism POV? Most of the Chaldean and Syriac nationalist also consider it the same people? Well, look back in the archive and see the voting about renaming it (because of WP:common name). The content of the article is about A/C/S. Shmayo (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tisqupnaia2010, there is a general consensus that this article is about the combined ethnicity that encompasses Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Syriacs. The title may be a problem, but there is general consensus about that as well. We've tried to keep the religious distinctions separate from the ethnic commonality. Please stop removing "Chaldean" from this article without building a consensus for it. Your unilateral actions are not welcome. (Taivo (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
No general consensus can be based on renaming an entire ethnic group to another name. I deeply respect your approach Prof.; however, as long as the title is about "Assyrians", let the contents be about Assyrians as well. Just keep Chaldeans out of it.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without building a consensus, you cannot rearrange the contents of Wikipedia to suit your whim. Build a consensus. (Taivo (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with both Tisqupnaia; about the article naming, and Taivo; about the need for consensus, and I convey my support of Tisqupnaia to this end. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I see what's going around now. It seems that one user, Shmayo, has made all of Wikipedia think that Chaldeans are part of Assyrians. Yet, talk still lectures me about consensus!!! So, do you just ignore what Chaldeans say and stick with what one Assyrians @!#$ says!!!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Of Babylonia (talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't even so active in the discussions about the name of the article. So stop saying things that are not true. Shmayo (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King of Babylonia, do you actually read your own Talk Page? I suggest you follow the advice of both your fellow Chaldeans concerning putting away your weapons and building consensus in Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Assyrian genocide

The Assyrian Genocide (also known as Sayfo or Seyfo) was committed against the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac population of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. The Assyrian population of northern Mesopotamia (the Tur Abdin, Hakkari, Van, Siirt regions of present-day southeastern Turkey and the Urmia region of northwestern Iran) was forcibly relocated and massacred by Ottoman (Turkish) and Kurdish forces between 1914 and 1920.

The death toll of the Assyrian genocide was approximately 250,000, according to contemporary and more recent sources. The Los Angeles Times reported in 1918 that US Ambassador Morgenthau said that the Ottoman Empire had "massacred fully 2,000,000 men, women, and children -- Greeks, Assyrians, Armenians; fully 1,500,000 Armenians."[1] With 250,000 Greeks among the dead, that makes Ambassador Morgenthau's estimate of Assyrian deaths about 250,000.[2]

In its December 4, 1922, memorandum, the Assyro-Chaldean National Council stated that the total death toll was unknown. It estimated that about 275,000 "Assyro-Chaldeans" died between 1914 and 1918.[3] The population of the Assyrians of the Ottoman Empire was about 500,000 before the genocide, and 100,000 to 250,000 after.[4]

The Assyrian genocide took place in the same context and time-period as the Armenian and Greek genocides.[5] Modern sources usually describe the events as an Assyrian genocide, along with the Armenian genocide and Greek genocide by the Ottoman Empire, listing the Greek Orthodox, Syriac Christian and Armenian Christian as victims together. For example, the International Association of Genocide Scholars reached a consensus that "the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire between 1914 and 1923 constituted a genocide against Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian and Anatolian Greeks."[6] After this resolution, the Dictionary of Genocide, co-authored by eminent genocide scholar Samuel Totten, an expert on Holocaust education and the genocide in Darfur, contained an entry on the "Assyrian genocide."[7] The President of Genocide Watch endorsed the "repudiation by the world's leading genocide scholars of the Turkish government's ninety-year denial of the Ottoman Empire's genocides against its Christian populations, including Assyrians, Greeks, and Armenians."[6]

State your opinion as you wish, Above is reality with pictures and documented families that have been involved, many Assyrians lost their grandfathers and grandmothers during these GENOCIDES —Preceding unsigned comment added by AssyrianMedia (talk • contribs) 18:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term assyrian genocide is nothing but created after some political conquests. The reffences given on the page is not objective and biased, at the same time "The Plight of Religious Minorities: Can Religious Pluralism Survive? - Page 51 by United States Congress" can not be given as an objective reffence since US holds a biased possition on todays world.The refference "The Armenian Genocide: Wartime Radicalization Or Premeditated Continuum" also uses the theme "Assyrian Genocide" in order to gain more concrete gound for the so called Armenian Genocide. I demand that Assyrian genocide in this text should be renamed as "so called assyrian genocide claims". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.48.236 (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before 16th century, what is best neutral term?

These three groups--Assyrians, Chaldean, and Syriacs--split religiously in the 16th century. After that point in time, "Assyrian", "Chaldean", and "Syriac" are appropriate labels. But before the split they are not appropriate labels. The Assyrians do not go back to ancient Assyria. The Chaldeans do not go back to ancient Babylon. That is just nationalistic chest-thumping propaganda. So what is the best term to use for the ethnicity prior to the 16th century? I have seen "Nestorian" used in writing about Mongolia in the 13th and 14th century. (Taivo (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

First note that the Assyrian Church of the East's current patriarch added Assyrian to the name. So Assyrian was used before any churched used it. It's hard to say what was used in other languages that early. Nestorian was used often, but it's not an ethnic term. And it was used to much other people at that time to. The Nestorian missionaries were successfull and the Nestorian church once had 80 million members[2][3], and of course the Nestorians in China were not the same as the original Nestorians in Mesopotamia. I would say that the few times this people was named by ethnicity "Syrian" and "Assyrian" was used. I've posted some sources in the talk page of Tel Skuf showing that "Assyrian" was used early. And "Syrian" was used too. And "Syrian" maybe the direct translation from what the people always have called themselves, Suraya/Sur(y)oyo. Syria/Syrian is derived from Assyria/Assyrian[4][5][6][7][8] But just because Syrian is, or were, a common word for the people I do not think it should be used. I think most people would agree with me on this. It associates with the mordern arabic state Syria. This have been a big problem and 2000 the Syrian Orthodox Church changed name to the Syriac Orthodox Church. After this the term Syriacs have grown bigger. It was probably first used as an ethnic term by the Syriac Universal Alliance. So I doubt that we can find another early used term. But yes, Nestorian was much used, but it's not an ethnic term. Shmayo (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to look at some English-language histories of the Middle East that talk about the non-Arab, non-Kurd, population of Mesopotamia from the 8th to the 16th centuries. That's the key here, not what Mesopotamian Christians say about themselves or what names they use in the Neo-Aramaic languages, but what (non-Assyrian, non-Chaldean) English speakers called them, especially in the 20th century before all the nationalism erupted. And religion, especially in this part of the world, is one important component of ethnicity. (Taivo (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Very nice of you that you're helping! Yes, it's true what you're saying about religion. But Nestorian is a term after Nestorius just as Jacobite sometimes is used as a synonym for Syriac Orthodox (after Jacob Baradaeus). I really hope that you will find something interesting, but I think it will mostly be "Syrian". The only early English I can think of right now is a map, but I'll also try to look for early wrintings in English. Shmayo (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key isn't what was written early about the 8th-16th century period, but what was written in the 20th century about that period. We don't use Elizabethan terms today in English (for example, Mohammedan instead of Muslim). The early maps may be interesting, but they're not going to help the terminological issue as much as the terms that contemporary (non-sectarian) scholars are using. (Taivo (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Just to comment about what I've seen you doing lately. First, I agree with the other Chaldean (KOB) when he said the name Nestorian is offensive to Chaldeans. This name actually refers to broader people than the ones we want to address. Second, I agree with Shmayo about the name C/A/S. I have already stated that this is the current name agreed on in Iraq. So just renaming this article to C/A/S would probably solve the problem. Third, Assyrian Nationalists were more active in the 19th and 20th centuries. Because of this, you'll probably find the word "Assyrians" used more. This doesn't mean it represents the entire population. It simply means Chaldeans tend to be Iraqis rather than ask for a separate homeland of 40 square miles like Assyrians do. Finally, It sounds like "Mesopotamian Christians" would be a better term to describe our people. Instead of stating ethnicity, it states the place of origin, which we all agree on. As we all know, languages evolve. So, why not just introduce this term here to solve our warring and to add a new term that better describes our people. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name for the people prior to the rise of Assyrian and to (some extent) Chaldean nationalism in the 20th century, was simply Syrians. There are no discrepancies concerning this among schoolars. And it's still used in its modern form, i.e. Syriacs. The TriZ (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, it seems that The TriZ is somehow correct about the name, they actually are called East Syrians. As I said before, Nestorian is an offensive name. Here is a book[9] that clearly states that Nestorian is offensive. Please read page "x" of the preface, the 6th sentence of the second paragraph. You'll find that the correct name of the people is in fact East Syrians. If Historians call these people East Syrians, then neither me, nor any of the other users could argue anymore. Regardless to my beliefs, I will support what Historians call these people.--King Of Babylonia (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it sounds like "East Syrian" is a possibility, as is "Mesopotamian Christian". If modern historians who write about the period from the 8th century to the 16th century are using "East Syrian", then that is a preferable term at least when talking about the unified Church of the East prior to the splits. Is it an acceptable term for using for the modern period? Some of your comments seem to indicate that it might be an acceptable term for the modern people as well. (Taivo (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The only thing that I can recall against this name, in my personal beliefs, is the fact that there is another church that incorporates this name in its title. However, I don't really see any reason that makes it unaccepted or insulting (As long as you keep "Nestorian" out of it) to the modern people.--King Of Babylonia (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Triz said the new form Syriacs is used instead. This because Syrian associates with Syria. "...are using "East Syrian", then that is a preferable term at least when talking about the unified Church of the East prior to the splits." but don't forget that the Syriac Orthodox Church never was a part of this church. The people of the Church of the East is just one part of the people. Shmayo (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the term East Syrian generally only includes members of the eastern churches, not the western, such as the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Syriac Catholic Church. Simply Syrian was used for the entire people. Syrian is nowadays not used, and instead Syriac is used, as to disassociate the people from the Arab citizens of the modern state of Syria. The TriZ (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back to my early comments with Shmayo, you'll see that I have told you "East Syrians" or "East Syriacs" is the correct name. I'm glad that you've finally got it. Anyway, the reference that KOB provided clearly says East Syrians became the current Assyrians and Chaldeans. It doesn't mention anything about other people. The name is not associated with any Church, and it is not political. It clearly names "The People" ,not churches. I don't think you guys should worry about other Churches/People. If this has been proven to be the correct name, then it should be used.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add one more thing, I hope there is no such thing as Syriac Nationalists. If they exist, then "Mesopotamian Christians" would be a better term to keep us away from another warring. But to be frank, I have never heard of Syriac Nationalism. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great consensus-building gentlemen. Just so I'm perfectly clear, the people before the 16th century should be called "East Syrians" or "East Syriac". Is that correct? After the 16th century split, does "East Syrians" or "East Syriac" or "Syriac" still apply to the group that includes both Assyrians and Chaldeans? (Taivo (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
As far as I can tell, Syriac alone indicates the Syriac part of the people. Stating the whole name East Syriac or Syrian should clarify they are all three later people, C/A/S. Also, I don't think there are Syriac Nationalists. The Syriac people are very nice and have never imposed their name over the rest of us. Just make sure to add East to Syriac or Syrian to make it clear they are the three people, C/A/S. --King Of Babylonia (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with KOB. Stating "East Syriac or Syrian" should be clear that they include the three ethnic groups (C/A/S). "Syriac" alone refers to the Syriac group only. I think "East Syriac" still applies to the group of Assyrians and Chaldeans. I don't recall anything against it.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Iraq: Resolution In Favor of Minority Groups". Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. 2010-2-24. Retrieved 2010-3-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  2. ^ http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v11n1/Review.pdf
  3. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?cd=10&hl=sv&id=8_HqAAAAMAAJ&dq=nestorian+80+million&q=80+millions#search_anchor
  4. ^ John Selden, De Dis Syris, Syntagmata 2 (Leipzig,1617), Prolegomena.
  5. ^ Theodor Nöldeke, “ASSURIOS SURIOS SUROS,” Hermes 5 (1881): 443–68
  6. ^ Eduard Schwartz, “Einiges über Assyrien, Syrien und Koilesyrien,” Philologus 86 (1931): 373–99.
  7. ^ Payton R. Helm, “ ‘Greeks’ in the Neo-Assyrian Levant and ‘Assyria’ in Early Greek Writers” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1980), p. 34.
  8. ^ Richard N. Frye, “Assyria and Syria: Synonyms,” JNES 51 (1992): 281–85.
  9. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=B-RKKldm0b4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=christians+of+mesopotamia&source=bl&ots=_6BhaOIafD&sig=6AKJ2FOC3T-u5ESIaLXffrLjNL4&hl=en&ei=KbHKS-zXFIOSsgPtw5i-Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=chaldean&f=false

Trial Naming Poll

This is the first shot at finding a consensus for a naming for this article that all three groups can agree on without the awkwardness of Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac or Chaldean/Assyrian/Syriac. Members of each of these three groups have been participating in a discussion and there seems to be a preliminary consensus building around using "East Syriac people" as the title of this article. This isn't a request for move yet, just another step in carefully building consensus among the affected editors. Should the title of this article be "East Syriac people"? (Taivo (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]


I support renaming this article to "East Syriac People".--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assyrian_people&oldid=356869908"