Talk:Terms for Syriac Christians

Assyrians and Syriacs/Arameans May Actually NOT Be The Same people

One point that most people seem to ignore is that the "Syriac" Christians of the near east may well not be members of the same ethnic group, but rather closely related ethnic groups. Generally, it is accepted that "Syriac Christians" are SEMITIC, PRE ARAB and PRE ISLAMIC indigenies of what are now Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, South and south east Turkey and northwestern Iran. I cant imagine people have much dispute about this point surely?

Accepting the above to be the case, it then comes down to who these people are.

It is entirely natural and logical that people who are clearly of Pre Arab and Pre Islamic populations in these regions identify with the pre Arab and pre Islamic past of these regions.

I suggest that these peoples are RELATED BUT NOT EXACTLY THE SAME PEOPLE.

MESOPOTAMIA -ASSYRIANS, an area roughly encompassing modern Iraq, a section of north eastern Syria and south eastern Turkey. The natives of this area were Sumerians and Akkadians, later infused with Amorites. The Sumerians seem to have been absorbed into the Akkadian population. After this came Arameans, who also intermixed with the native Akkadian population. By the late 6th Century BC Mesopotamian independence was over. HOWEVER, the native Mesopotamians were very clearly NOT wiped out or removed. There is no impirical historical evidence whatsoever to suggest this, let alone proof. In fact both Assyria and Babylon existed as provinces until the 7th Century AD. Essentially, people who were extant at the close of the 6th century BC were still extant at the time of the Arab Islamic conquest. These people were indigenous Mesopotamians to all intents and purposes. Those that rejected the process of Arabization and Islamification of the region are what we call the modern Assyrians, or if you like Chaldo-Assyrians or even Chaldeans (though the latter was originally a purely theological term). Certainly, they are not PURE anything, in the same way no people are ethnically pure. But they ARE the last in the line of the family tree of pre Arab Mesopotamia, and as a result have every right to call themselves Assyrians, because they are indeed Mesopotamians. The "Burden of Proof" must in fairness be on those denying Assyrian/Mesopotamian ancestry, and as yet there is no proof that the populace was destroyed or removed.

SYRIA -ARAMEANS - Essentially modern Syria and south central Turkey. The north east of the country seems to have been Mesopotamia, the rest was essentially Aram in Pre Hellenic times. The populace was predominantly but not exclusively Aramean. There were a number of Neo Hittite groups, and later, Pre Islamic Arabs in the region. Those people who rejected Arabisation and Islamification in this region have every right to A) Regard themselves as Aramean and B) Refuse to identify as Assyrians or Mesopotamians, as they are not from Mesopotamia. The term "Syriac" is a little more complicated, because like it or not, MAINSTREAM opinion among scholars does support the view that this term is a Hellenic/Greek corruption of the term "Assyrian". The area known as Syria was not known as such at all before the Greek Conquests, and it was not known as such by its people.

LEBANON -PHOENICIANS - Pretty much the same as the above two. The area of Lebanon and the Meditteranean coast of Syria was home to the Canaanite/Phoenician Civilisation. Those who existed before the Arab-Islamic conquest will naturally identify with the Pre Arab- Pre Islamic history and people of the region. Of Course Greeks and Romans as well as Arameans settled there also, but as I said, no one is pure anything.

I think the above makes perfect sense and is entirely logical. In addition it could help resolve this ridiculous situation where some Assyrianists and Arameanists claim that every Semitic Christian in the near east is an Assyrian or Aramean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Other name

Shouldn't this article be called Syriac naming dispute? After all, they don't agree on the Assyrian part, but all agree on the Syriac, or Syrian name. Funkynusayri 17:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Amen! I thought I was the only one who opposed EliasAlucard zeal to Assyrianise everything Syriac, based on a few sources, and a Google count, which apparently has become the WP method to settle naming disputes. Suryāye is the only common denominator, and should be used in all articles concerning the Syriac people. Assyrian can only refer to Church of the East members, and those who explicitly refer to themselves as such. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, not that I have anything against the Assyrian identity, but I believe that when the article itself discusses the dispute, it shouldn't take side by picking one of the many names out and using it in the title, when they all agree on being called Syriacs. Everything else is POV. Funkynusayri 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I, everyone should be entitled to call themselves the way they want. But some nationalists try to impose their own idea of ethnicity upon others. Despite Google counts (which are heavily influenced by WP itself, and its forks), it is a fact that there is disagreement on this matter. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be called Syriac naming dispute? After all, they don't agree on the Assyrian part, but all agree on the Syriac, or Syrian name. — None of us dispute that we are Suraya/Suroyo. What we dispute is our origin and usage of our ethnic name. The Assyrian faction (which is definitely the largest one since we exist in large numbers in all of our churches), is of the opinion that Suraya/Suryoyo comes from Assurayu. A lot of historical evidence exists for this, and it is supported by Assyriologists and other academics, as well as some of our patriarchs. The Aramaean faction, says it means Aramaean. Obviously, it doesn't, but there are a few historical references (not many, but a few exist) that connect Syrian to Aramaean. It could just as well be so that the Arabs in Syria are more Aramaeans than those in the Syriac Orthodox Church. The truth is, there were no Aramaean movement before the 1950s and they all snapped up on Aramaeanism after John Joseph published his fringe theories in the 1960s. Before that, none of us identified as Aramaeans. Joseph's theories however, are loosely collected from a few references of vague clarity. The reason why not everyone agrees on Assyrian is largely due to ignorance (mostly from Chaldean Catholics who have been inculcated with lies and don't understand that Suraya means Assurayu). Assyrian can only refer to Church of the East members, and those who explicitly refer to themselves as such. — This is not true. Like it or not Benne, but there is a very strong Assyrian movement in the Syriac Orthodox Church (even Garzo has admitted this on his talk page). And get this: it is growing, very fast, especially here in Sweden. The more members from the Syrian Orthodox Church begin to question things, and read up on our history, the more they understand that they are Assyrians. The Assyrian identity is not limited to churches. That is what it is all about: we Assyrian nationalist do not believe in defining our ethnicity from our Churches' point of view. Although, it is true that the Assyrian Church of the East is entirely of an Assyrian identity, the Assyrian identity is in no way limited to that ecclesiastical body. And this dispute boils down to us being Assyrians. The Aramaeanists simply copied the Assyrian nationalist movement which began around a hundred years earlier. And let's face it Benne, while we're at it: there is no consensus whatsoever within the Syriac Orthodox Church that "Aramaean" somehow is the unquestionable ethnicity. Aramaeanists are actually very obscure and exist mostly in northern Europe, and not even here are they a majority within their own group. That must be tough Benne, I can feel your pain, dawg :) And by the way, the Maronites have no connection whatsoever to the ancient Phoenicians, they're just saying that as some sort of excuse to resist Arab nationalism. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 00:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, not that I have anything against the Assyrian identity, but I believe that when the article itself discusses the dispute, it shouldn't take side by picking one of the many names out and using it in the title, when they all agree on being called Syriacs. Everything else is POV. — Problem is, Syriac is not neutral either, not any longer anyway, since Aramaeanist fanatics have hijacked it recently and more or less made it synonymous with Aramaean (or at least tried). That is the reason why Benne favours Syriac, because he thinks it means Aramaean. He's not saying so because he's neutral or anything. Neither do I, everyone should be entitled to call themselves the way they want. — While that is true, it is also true, that we have Syriacs who deliberately ignore evidence that is in opposition to their recently conjured up POV. Look man, we are not Aramaeans, none of us. I am open to the possibility that we may very well indeed have some Aramaean blood in our genetic ancestry, but that is way exaggerated by fanatics. But some nationalists try to impose their own idea of ethnicity upon others. — Oh please, that is so lame. The Assyrian faction isn't imposing anything, we are just telling it like it is. That might be difficult for some of us to hear and accept, but it certainly isn't "imposing." No nationalist is imposing anything. We are just citing sources, and the the reliable sources we have are simply in favour of Assyrian. it is a fact that there is disagreement on this matter. — Yes, and it is also a fact that your disagreement is based on ignorance. Look, this is just a simple way of naming articles of this kind. See for example Native American name controversy. What do you suggest then? Native Mesopotamian name controversy?— Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

'"None of us dispute that we are Suraya/Suroyo."

Exactly, and that's my point, if all factions agree on this, then "Syriac" would fit better for use in the article title. That "Assyrian" is a more probable name than for example "Aramean" doesn't change the fact that the most neutral, NPOV name we should use on Wikipedia articles would be "Syriac". The "Assyrian" name can always be mentioned in articles, but it isn't appropriate in articles like this one, which is about the naming dispute itself. Taking sides on Wikipedia is highly dis encouraged even though the side is more "realistic".

"What do you suggest then?"

I already mentioned that in the first post: the most neutral, and universally agreed upon name, "Syriac". Just like "native Americans" seems to be the most neutral term for Amerindians, thus used in the article name.

Seems like this was the earlier, and quite appropriate, name of the article: "Names of Syriac Christians" Funkynusayri 06:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Syriac isn't neutral any longer since, like I've mentioned, the pseudo-Arameans have high-jacked it. Today, those who go by Syriac are almost exclusively the Aramaeanist fanatics, while those who go by Assyrian are the rest of us. And if you understand the history behind this dispute, you'll understand that it is all about the Assyrian name. This entire conflict is about that some of us didn't like Assyrian nationalism and they went their own way and invented this Aramaeanism and now they're living in their own bubble refusing to understand their own history, simply out of a ridiculous pride. The Aramaeanist fanatics are in no way open to modern research on the subject. It doesn't matter what archaeological evidence is discovered, what Assyriologist write, and so on. They are seriously brainwashed into this Arameanist sect. You should read this by Aprim: [1] The Arameanist movement is from the early 1970s. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 11:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Blatant nonsense, Elias, and you know it. See [2], where you can see that some Aramaean and Assyrian groups have agreed on a common name Syriac. Try to get it into your brain that Assyrians are merely a faction of the Suryoye people, and do not represent a majority, as far as I know. You try to portray me as if I claim that all Syriac Orthodox believe themselves to be Aramaeans, which is also nonsense. Even though I am personally convinced of the Aramaean heritage of the Syriacs (at least the ones from Tur Abdin), I am very well aware that many Suryoye consider themselves Assyrians. The only "proof" you have come up with so far, is the etymological connection between the names Syriac and Assyrian, which is, as I've pointed out before, acknowledged by Nöldeke and considered likely by Joseph, both of whom however add that the etymological connection between the two names is not enough reason to suggest a connection between the two peoples, but stress the Aramaean heritage of the Syriacs/Syrians instead. The other "proof" you've presented are articles by Assyriologists, Parpola in particular, whose article is disputed to say the least, and I'd say even shaky. So it's clear that "Assyrian" (as well as "Aramaean") are disputed terms when it comes to referring to the Suryoye/Suryāye as a whole. It is European Syriacs themselves, both Aramaean, Assyrian, and Chaldaean, who seem to have agreed on a common denominator "Syriac". --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, seems like there's a lot of personal stuff involved, maybe we should have a completely different editor to look at this. What about Garzo? Funkynusayri (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Garzo is too politically correct when it comes to this. Although, since he's trying to be neutral, he's a noble guy who doesn't want to offend any side in this name dispute, it simply ends up with him being indecisive on the historical accuracy. And yes, this is very personal. Look, what this name dispute is all about, is that some academic scholar from the Assyrian Church of the East, John Joseph, whose both parents were Assyrians, decided to write a book, and added some anti-Assyrian nationalist perspective in it. This was in 1961. There wasn't any name dispute at the time. In 1967 when Assyrians from the Syriac Orthodox Church moved to Sweden and established themselves in Södertälje and founded Assyriska FF in the early 1970s, a new wave of Assyrian immigrants from the Syriac Orthodox Church moved to Sweden in 1974. These new retarded idiots were jealous and disliked the other Assyrian nationalists and wanted to keep their political power in the Syriac Orthodox Church. So they decided to jump on the Aramaeanism bandwagon started by John Joseph. That is how this name dispute began. Look at the Assyrian Genocide. Even Garzo admits on its talk page that at the time, most of the victims identified as Assyrians (Suryoyo Othuroyo): There are some difficulties in terminology. Sayfo is readily understood in West Syriac communities, but I'm not sure how widespread the use of the alternative pronunciation Saypâ is among East Syriacs. The name Assyrian is difficult because it was a label used by many of those killed at the time of the massacres, and it still hasn't widespread support among their descendents. Perhaps we should take note that the Holocaust is not headed Ha-Shoah in Wikipedia. --Gareth Hughes 20:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC).[3] Now these crazy lunatic crackpots are trying to change it to Suryoyo Oromoyo with political revisionism by desperately trying to link together vague historical quotes and somehow, desperately trying to link it to all Assyrians. In any case, John Joseph has been proven wrong by Richard Nelson Frye twice on the historical accuracy in his book regarding this name dispute. These Aramaeanists have been proven wrong so many times, but it doesn't matter; they just won't listen. The entire reason they hate Assyrians, is because the Old Testament is filled with anti-Assyrian sentiments because we Assyrians destroyed the Kingdom of Israel, and Jesus spoke Aramaic, so they feel like they become a 'holier-than-thou God's chosen people' if they deny their Assyrian ancestry. It's religious fanaticism at the height of stupidity. Just like there are Self-hating Jews, these Aramaeanists are Self-hating Assyrians, the only difference is that when the Jew hates himself, he doesn't take another ethnic group's identity. And these Aramaeanists are only a minor fringe group within a larger ethnic group. This pseudo-historical Aramaeanism ideology must be destroyed once and for all for the perverted lie it is. Aramaeanism must be stomped out from our people as the degenerate ideology it is. — Aššur-bāni-apli II (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• The reason why I think the title should be Assyrian instead of Syriac is simply because Assyrian is, historically, the right term. More importantly, Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriac/Aramaic-speaking Iraqis/Iranians are internationally ultimatly known as Assyrians (see what you get on google news.) Chaldean (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, our ethnicity is world wide known as Assyrian. — Aššur-bāni-apli II (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • http://www.christiansofiraq.com/Picture%20map%201.jpg <--- This image is a screenshot from MSNBC or some other American news site. The majority of Assyrians in northern Iraq are Chaldean Catholics. Most of Zowaa's political members are Chaldean Catholics. It is only in the Assyrian diaspora where some Chaldean Catholics deny that they are Assyrians. Needless to say, in the Assyrian homeland, where it counts, there is no name dispute. — Aššur-bāni-apli II (talk · contribs) 00:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• The name doesn't fit for example the Maronites, who can said to be "Syriacs" in a sense, but certainly not Assyrians. Therefore the term Assyrian is hardly good as a complete substitute for Syriac. Also, how do the Mandeans fit in to this? Funkynusayri 17:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Assyrian name dispute" is a horrible choice. It isn't even beyond reproach grammatically. The scope of this article should be to explain all issues relating to names of Syriac Christians, regardless of whether they are disputed. dab (𒁳) 17:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the MAJORITY opinion of modern scholars is that the term Syrian is a Hellenic derivation of the term Assyrian. Of course it is possible that it is from "Hurri", but that is NOT mainstream opinion. Prior to the Hellenic period, the term Syria was not used at all, the region of modern Syria was called Aram. In contrast the term Assyria was used to describe, well....Assyria, right up until the Arab conquest of the 7th century. Furthermore, people such as the Armenians continued to use the term Assouri right up until the present day. I do fail to see why there is what borders on an obsession with denying an Assyrian heritage to Assyrians among some people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Arameans

WestAssyrian (talk · contribs) has been removing information that says there are followers of the Aramean identity in the Syriac Catholic Church and the Maronite Church. Here are sources that proves that there are some followers in the different churches that advocates an Aramean identity. [4] & [5] Newadvent Encyclopedia, the source says that the Maronites are of Syrian (Syriac) race and that "The Syrians are direct descendants of the ancient Arameans.". [6] Maronite Heritage, Aramaic/Syriac Maronites are mentioned several times & from the same site "The Aramean Syrian Maronites of Syria joined the Canaanite Phoenician Maronites of Lebanon and the Mardaites in Lebanon." [7]. [8] Official site of the Our Lady of Deliverance Syriac Catholic Diocese, "Throughout history the Syriac people have been known as the "Arameans"...". [9] Official web site for the Syriac Catholic Youth Club, again, "Throughout history the Syriac people have been known as the "Arameans"...". Also in almost all of the Maronite sites they are speaking of Syriac-Maronites (e.g. [10], [11], etc.). The TriZ (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are Libanese from the Maronite Church that consider themselve as Western Assyrians as well. Middle East expert Walid Phares speaking at the 70th Assyrian Convention, on the topic of Assyrians in post-Saddam Iraq, began his talk by asking why he as a Lebanese Maronite ought to be speaking on the political future of Assyrians in Iraq, answering his own question with "because we are one people. We believe we are the Western Assyrians and you are the Eastern Assyrians. [12] --WestAssyrian (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

there is a difference between "identity" and "descent". I am directly descended from the Urnfield people, but I am rather far from embracing an "Urnfield identity". We should note that a common term in German is Aramäer, but I am not aware that the corresponding "Aramaean" has any currency in English. --dab (𒁳) 13:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Genetic of the Libanese people have shown a link between modern Lebanese Christians and the ancient Phoenicians [[13]] Thats my point that we cant say that Maronites are Arameans or Assyrians but there are some of the Libanes-Maronite people that consider themselve as Assyrians or Arameans --WestAssyrian (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, stop inserting quotations that doesn't contribute to the article. Understand that this article is meant to demonstrate the conflict, not to prove who is right and not. And don't use sources such as AINA and other nationalistic sources (e.g. bethsuryoyo).

It is not a question of being Aramean or Assyrian, it is a question of what some people identify as. For example, I showed that members of the Syriac Catholic Church and the Maronite Church (official sites, such as their youth club), advocates an Aramean identity. You have only showed what one person has said according to Aina.org. And why do you insist on putting Assyrian in front of Aramean? Haven't you learned the order of the alphabet? The TriZ (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have shown you that the Libanes people DNA shows us a Phoenician heritage. And I have shown you that there are Maronites that consider themselve as Assyrians (It dosent matter how many people I show you, its about if there are some people that consider themselve as Assyrians). AINA is a sourced material homepage. Should I only use your hompages? I dont insist on putting Assyrian in front of Aramean, It have been like that from the first time. So the change you did putting Aramean in front of Assyrian shows us that you only cares about putting aramean infront of assyrian and nothing else. --WestAssyrian (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You haven't showed anything really. You have showed that there is one Maronite whom according to Aina.org basically says that we're the same people, nothing else really. And Aina.org isn't a reliable source, you using it is like me using Aramnaharaim.org. With other words, don't use it.

You insist in putting Assyrian in front of Aramean since you've done it more than once the last days, even though it has been reverted by multiple editors. Can we agree to have it in alphabetical order? The TriZ (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We cant go after alphabetical order. Then we must change every sentence and word in every article after alphabetical order this is impossible, this kind of edit have been made only by you so dont say that it have been made by multiple editors. Let it be like it was before there is no wrong with that. If you look at "Syriac national identities" it describes the Assyrian identity first and so on. My point is there is no need to change such things in the article. --WestAssyrian (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because it was like that before, doesn't mean it was better, writing a wikipedia article is an ongoing process. So we can indeed divide the different terms in alphabetical order, simply for the reason of some sort of structure. I will also remove the two quotes you added, we could go on and on and filling the whole article with such quotes, I could for example quote Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, the current Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, whom advocates an Aramean identity. Also Mar Raphael I Bidawid is already mentioned in the article. The TriZ (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not revert sourced material. stop changing everything in your way! --WestAssyrian (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

please reconsider whether you really want to invest time in a prolongued dispute over the ordering of a bullet list. --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[14], I think this source proves that there are Maronites that consider themselves either Arab or Syriacs (with an Aramean identtity). The TriZ (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That source does not "prove" such a statement. This book contains the author's views on what the Maronites should or should not call themselves. One person's view cannot be generalized to that of an ethnic group. There are also many Assyrians who think that Maronites should identify themselves as Assyrian. This does not necessarily imply that Maronites identify with Assyrians. --Šarukinu (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research

This article is an original research written by somebody who does not understand what the paper of John Joseph says. His paper pretty much settles the dispute should someone UNDERSTAND what is says, not just refer to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.175 (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nestorians and Jacobites

It seems bizarre to me that the section 'History' does not mention the fact that, between the sixth and nineteenth centuries, most Syriac Christians defined themselves by a religious rather than by a national identity. They called themselves, and were called by others, Nestorians, Jacobites and Maronites (and later on Chaldeans and Syrian Catholics). Nor, of course, was their 'national' identity Assyrian. They called themselves, and were called by others, Suraye, Syrians. All serious scholars agree that the 'Assyrian' identity was invented in the nineteenth century, and it seems pointless to read back this identity into earlier periods when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.

Djwilms (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comments show nothing but complete incompetence. First you state “They called themselves, and were called by others, Nestorians.” This is utter rubbish; Nestorian/s has always been a pejorative term utilized by outsiders such as foolhardy Anglo-Saxshits like yourself to incorrectly identify the members of the Church of the East. You incompetently state “Nor, of course, was their 'national' identity Assyrian.” Under what authority do you state this? Do you think just because you wrote some stupid overpriced book on the Church of the East that gives you the sole authority to deny the national cultural identity of an ancient community which has been persecuted since the fall of Nineveh. You are no different than Saddam’s regime which sought to deny this minorities cultural, religious, and ethnical right during his Arabization policies. You make me sick. Your last comment alone shows the bigotry and high level of ignorance you portray. Who are the “most scholars” you are referring to? Are they world renowned Assyriolgoists such as H.W.F. Saggs, Robert D. Biggs, Simo Parpola, Iranologist Richard Nelson Fyre, or esteemed Geneticist Cavalli-Sforza who stated “T]he Assyrians are a fairly homogeneous group of people, believed to originate from the land of old Assyria in northern Iraq", and "they are Christians and are bona fide descendants of their namesakes."[ This list of influential individuals is but a fraction of scholars who reject your outdated, identity denying, incompetent British stance. I would dedicate an entire article to prove your foolhardy comments obsolete but after reading disturbing comments such as this [15] or supporting a banned wiki user here [16] you’re unreachable. You incompetently state “Assyrian identity is a modern construct, dating no further back than the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century. The claim of descent from the ancient Assyrians is as preposterous as the claim that the Church of the East was a fifth patriarchate, ranking alongside Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople.” The only preposterous thing is your continual denial. You have no authority or any right to deny the ethnic heritage of a people as you have done multiple times during your anti-Assyrian rampage here on Wikipedia. At the same time stop advertising your damn book everywhere. It is getting really annoying. Due to a time restraint I will leave you as is because your diluted mind is already made up on his topic. May your body be infested with larva. I hope everyone who continues to make outrageous comments such as yourself in the acadmic field be stripped of all your so called prestige and be put in the same camp as holocaust deniers. 69.3.27.154 (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The term Syrian and Syriac are derived from Assyrian anyway! Historically, they mean one and the same thing. In addition, the term Assyrian, in its many variants, has been used consistently throughout the ages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof must lie with those wishing to deny Assyrian ethnic, cultural and national identity. That is to say people such as Djwilms must provide proof or at least strong evidence to support the wholesale destruction, elimination or deportation of the indigenous pre Arab peoples of Mesopotamia. The fact is that there is no such proof, therefore those denying a link between the modern Assyrians and the ancient Pre Arab population of Assyria/Mesopotamia do not really have any argument bar saying "i dont believe it!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This article gives a monopoly to crazies! Why is it allowed? Doesn't somebody change it in a more scientific direction? Or does somebody just change it back to the ludicruous set of myths? Eleanor1944 (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)