Talk:Assyrian people

Separate Entry for Syriac-Arameans

unproductive discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Assyrians are esentially those East Aramaic speaking Semitic Christians from northern Iraq, southeast Turkey, northwest Iran and northeast Syria (what was Assyria until the 7th century AD) who are members of the Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church, Ancient Church of the East, Syriac Orthodox Church and Assyrian Pentecostal Church. Syriac-Arameans were originally West Aramaic speaking people from the bulk of Syria and south central Turkey. They have never lived in Assyria or regarded themselves as Assyrians. The Seleucids caused this confusion when they applied the name SYRIA which originally meant ASSYRIA to ARAMEA as well. The Assyrians and Arameans are two related but distinct peoples. The term SYRIAC does not mean anything in an ethnic sense, it originally meant Assyrian, most scholars accept this, but since the Seleucid Empire it has been applied not only to Assyrians, but to Arameans and Phoenicians as well. In light of the above, would it not be best to add the history of the Aramean people to the Arameans entry on Wiki? I have tried to edit that page to reflect this difference; Assyrian people and Aramean people should be seperate; they are after all historically, geographically, linguistically and genetically separate. As for the modern term Chaldean, it means nothing in an ethnic, historical or geographical sense, it is just a modern theological term with no historical link to the past. Cosign! Syrian meant the same thing as Assyrian for centuries. Arameans mixed with Assyrians and Babylonians during the Assyrian Empire, but they are separate races from different parts of the Middle East. Most Syrian Christians are Arameans apart from the Hasakeh and Qamlishi Assyrian areas in the northeast. Assyrians speak Eastern Aramaic, Arameans used to speak Western Aramaic but now Arabic. Assyrians are from Mesopotamia, Arameans are from The Levant. Assyrians have been called Assyrians for over 4000 years, Arameans were always called Arameans until the Greeks introduced Syrian to the Western World circa 300 BC, but they still called themselves Arameans. Mesopotamians and Levantines also have different genertic profiles. A no brainer! Suryoye from Mesopotamia are Arameans as well and not Assyrians! I bet you won't find any chronicles from the "Assyrian" Church of the East, where the patriarchs claim an Assyrian racial identity before the 19th century. The Church of the East add "Assyrian" to its name in the 19th century, because of the European colonists and missionaries. The Syriac-Orthodox Church is one of the oldest churches in the world and can prove an Aramean racial identity by its heritage and that the Syriacs are in fact Arameans (Suryoyo=Aramean). Don't say most scholars then! "Syriac-Arameans were originally West Aramaic speaking people from the bulk of Syria and south central Turkey. They have never lived in Assyria or regarded themselves as Assyrians." Are you kidding? The Arameans inhabited also Mesopotamia, not only the Assyrians. The Arameans may originated in the Levant but they moved to the north, where they settled and established their kingdoms. Look for king Tiglat-pileser III. who forcibly relocated/deported around 30,000 people from the kingdom Hama to Urartu and to Mannai, 150,000 Arameans from the south Babylonia had to settle in the eastern highlands. The deportation of the Arameans within the Assyrian empire has led to an "Arameanization" of the local population. Have you never asked yourselves, why you speak an Aramaic dialect/language? Or did the ancient Akkadian population, including the Assyrians, throw their language, identity and culture just for fun away like trash? West Aramaic differs a lot from East Aramaic that is true, but even within East Aramaic a Turoyo speaker would have massiv problems to communicate with a Neo "Assyrian" Aramaic speaker without any trouble. Turoyo and Neo Assyrian Aramaic are like Spanish and Italian. These dialects are rather languages based on Aramaic. You call your language Assyrian? Fine, but don't force other Arameans to call their language like that. There are no Assyrian genes or genes, which say "Hello, I am Assyrian"! An ethnic group is not just about genes or should all Mesopotamian, North African Arabs etc. abandon their Arabic identity, because they have a different genetic profile than the Arabs from Saudi Arabia? You have to be ignorant not to see that a lot of Suryoye from Syria, Turkey and even in Iraq do not follow Assyrian ideology/nationalism, which denies and destroy our Aramaic history. This is the reason why most people defend themselves against Assyrianism and find it strange to worship ancient Assyrian gods, temples or art since there is no connection to them. You try to revive an extinct nation at the expense of another nation. Why don't you learn the real Assyrian (Akkadian) language and characters then? That would be at least credible. Example: Dionysius Jacob Bar Salibi, the great spokesman of the syriac church in the 12th century, a native of Militini [now Malatya, Turkey], passed away Nov. 2, 1171: "The Armenians say: "From whom do you descend--you who are Syriacs by race?"--Against them we will say: Neither you know from whom you descend. The name "Armenian" is derived from "Armenian" which is the name of a country (and not of a person). It is we (Syriacs) who have enlightened your authors and revealed to them that you are descending from Togarma, who was from the children of Japhet. As to us Syriacs we descend racially from Shem, and our father is Kemuel son of Aram, and from this name of Aram we are also called sometimes in the Books by the name of "Arameans." We are called "Syriacs" after the name of "Syrus," who built Antioch with its banlieue; and the country was called after him, "Syria"." http://www.aramaic-dem.org/English/History/Evidences_of_our_Aramean_origin/Evidences_of_our_Aramean_origin.htm --Suryoyo123 (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Errm RUBBISH! We know damn well that Syria and Syriac are derivatives of Assyria, the Cinekoy Inscription proves this beyond doubt, scholarly opinion is massively in favour of Syrian meaning Assyrian, and some medieval churchman does not change that. If you want to call yourself Aramean, do so, but dont try and lump in Assyrians with your people. Likewise Herodotus writes in the 5th century BC that those we Greeks call Syrians, are called Assyrians in the east, Michael The Syrian says the same, so do 11th century Arab chroniclers. Syriac/Syrian means Assyrian, its a done deal. Sure, Arameans were deported into Assyria, where they blended with the OLDER and NATIVE population, but certainly did not replace them. An Akkadian infused version of Aramaic eventually took hold among the populace, a version introduced by an Assyrian king in the mid 8th century BC. Assyria was still called Assyria after that, in fact it was still called Assyria until the 7th century AD, never Aramea. And once again, we KNOW that Syrian originally meant Assyrian too, if you think the terms Syrian and Syriac come from Syrus, you are deluded, and completely at odds with modern scholars. The very reason I started this thread was to try and STOP the stupid arguing where Assyrians and Arameans try to claim each other, we should accept we are separate but related peoples, and accept each others rights to our identities, BOTH of which have the backing of Historians and written historical record. @Suryoyo123: I couldn't agree with you more. I am collecting "consensus" to have the forced redirection from "Syriac People" to "Assyrian People" removed, see the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syriac_people#Protected_edit_request_on_11_November_2014 Sr 76 (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC) I totally agree with you Sr 76. English speaking Assyrian nationalists use Wikipedia as their propaganda platform and do not allow other opinions and distort facts. "Errm RUBBISH! We know damn well that Syria and Syriac are derivatives of Assyria" Yeah, that is why the Western Aramaic language/dialect in Maaloula is also known as "Siryon" = "Suryoyo" or "Loghtha Siryanoytha" = "Leshono Suryoyo". Are they also Assyrians? I mean they are not from your beloved Assyria. Aram = Syria and Arameans = Syrians and vice versa which was adopted by the Arameans due to Greek-Jewish influences especially with the rise of Christianity. No matter if the term Syrian derives from Assyria it original refers to us Arameans and not to the ancient Assyrians.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC) You Oromoye nationalists are ALL brainwashed, this is the truth : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz4LmCoJLvE This is the interview of Hasyo Hanna Aydin made by SuroyoTV, around 23min40 Hasyo Hanna explain why he started Aramean nationalism, before that there was no such thing as Oromoye even Hasyo Hanna said it, he never heard it in the homeland!, what he says is coherent with what Assyrian nationalist say about the Oromoye/Aramean nationalist. Your movement started in Europe in the 80's. The people of Ma'loula are Aramean they have nothing to do with our people, while our people who live in North-Mesopotamia, between the Two Rivers, is clearly Assyrian by culture and language, Suryoyo = Assyrian, how come it can means "Aramean" ? there is a word for Aramean in our language and it's Oromoyo. No need to mention that the Assyrian empire had Aramaic as an official language. No Assyrian deny its Aramaic heritage, but he also do not deny his identity.'AynHaylo (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC) I'd like to add that it makes little sense to call Western Neo-Aramaic speakers as Syriac-Arameans when they don't speak Syriac... Aram is not Syria. Aram is Aram... the REAL Arameans that do NOT speak Syriac are centered around Damascus and its surroundings which is the native homeland of the (real) Arameans... The Maaloula Arameans are not Suryoye or Assyrians, they are Arameans... Again, Arameans do not speak Syriac as Syriac is an Aramaic dialect born in Mesopotamia as a mix of Akkadian and Imperial Aramaic. The word "Syrian" never refers to Aramean but Assyrian, where is the link that "Syrian" refers to "Aramean" when "Syrian" and "Assyrian" are spelled extremely similar and have a common origin? ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 03:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Someone should ask Professor Sargon G. Donabed. He is the best expert on Assyrian identity of any period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.245.48 (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

--CommonSenseofCourse (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Assyrians in Iraq are a minority; the majority of the Aramaic speaking Christians in Iraq are either Chaldean or Syriac, neither of the two claim to be Assyrian. There are Assyrians that are part of each church, do not confuse a pupil that attends the Chaldean Catholic/Syriac Orthodox Church, but calls himself Assyrian. Chaldeans are of Arab ancestry and Syriacs are of Aramean ancestry. Assyrians have nothing to do with ancient Assyrians. They are simply a group of Persian Christians/Armenians that were fooled by British Evangelists. They are Ah-Toor-A-Yah(Atoraya), meaning the people of the mountains, not Assyrians pertaining to Assur. Their issue is complex and they are bending the truth about the Christians of the Middle East, specifically the Syriacs and Chaldeans. They have nothing that proves that they are in fact Assyrian; the only thing they have is references pertaining to Assyrian Nationalists, which many have been successfully refuted by Syriac and Western scholars. They do not seek to unite neither of the groups, they simply wish to push their own agenda so that they can claim benefits from Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. Without Syriacs or Chaldeans on their side, they are unable to achieve any of their goals. They are not going anywhere in politics, the only threat they oppose is here on Wikipedia where they can misconstrued history. The joke is on them however because no scholar or researcher uses Wikipedia as a reference. They are a joke in Iraq and many of them ran during the seventies because their citizenship were stripped for being Iranians, which they truly are. Neither Syriacs or Chaldeans faced that issue in Iraq during the seventies. Many Assyrians speak funny Aramaic and Arabic. Their Aramaic does not sound like Syriac or Chaldean Aramaic; it sounds much like Persian than anything. They are not from Iraq as they have you believe, most of them come from Iran, but because of the Sykes-Picot Agreement many of them immigrated from Iran. They were considered as "ajam" in Iraq. The Massacre of Simele of 1933, was due to their fake Assyrian nationalism. The Syriacs and Chaldeans saved them from ethnic cleansing and this is how they repay them. They are much related to Kurds more than anyone in Iraq, this is apparent through their common mannerisms and nationalism, as well as their language, accent, and looks. Assyrians, please continue to disgrace yourselves, please, the more the merrier. The truth hurts. I feel sorry for your children because they are fed this fake idea of Assyrianization. Many of them will not know that they in fact are Kurds, Persians, or Armenians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommonSenseofCourse (talk • contribs) 01:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC) --CommonSenseofCourse (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You are the biggest troll that we have ever seen on this page, we Assyrians are Assyrians, we Syriacs are Assyrians, we Chaldeans are Assyrians. That is all. We are one people, Assyrians are Syriacs and vice versa. With all respect to the Armenians, Kurds, Arabs and Persians, we are not a part of you, we are our own people with our own language (Suryaya/Suryoyo ܣܘܪܝܝܐ) and our own religion. Our name : Suryoye or Suryaye goes back to thousand years ago, this has been more than 2500 years that we use this terms to designate us as a people, our language is an Aramaic language influenced by Akkadian (mainly loanwords but with a few grammaticals structures). .ܐܚܢܐ ܚܕ ܥܡܐܢܐ݂ ܟܠܢ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܡܢ ܐܫܘܪ ܡܘܬܐ ܠܒܥܠܕܒܒܐ ܘ ܟܝܢ/ ܚܝܢ Here is a video of us Assyrians, taking up arms and forming millitia (around 3000 for the Assyrian democratic movement and around 2000 for the Assyrian Assyrian Patriotic Movement) in Iraq (source AFP : Agence France Presse) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cxcr7SLyso I will leave you with the following pages, we are Assyrians/Syriacs those two terms are synonyms: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Syriac-Military-Council-MFS/495168480591866 https://www.facebook.com/SyriacsNews?ref=stream https://www.facebook.com/pages/Institut-Assyro-Chald%C3%A9en-Syriaque-FRANCE/191535884215845?ref=stream https://www.facebook.com/pages/ESU-Youth/633474350000894 https://fr-fr.facebook.com/pages/Institut-dEtudes-Aram%C3%A9ennes/384281555025566 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Assyrische-Br%C3%BCderschaft-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%86/500892583268758 https://www.facebook.com/pages/%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B4%D8%A7-Dwekh-Nawsha/691995807561137 'AynHaylo (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I am collecting "consensus" to have the forced redirection from "Syriac People" to "Assyrian People" removed, see the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syriac_people#Protected_edit_request_on_11_November_2014 @CommonSenseofCourse: Sr 76 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Assyrian Population Number incorrect

Sources are old from early 2000s, need up to date sources on numbers. I also remember seeing from the article that the population was 5+ million, then I checked again to see 3 million, and now it's 2 million? What kind of bullshit is this? Is the population 5 million, 3 million, or 2 million?... ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 19:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible that the there are 3.3 million people that IDENTIFY as Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriacs in the world. The argument is not about the homeland, which we have the most accurate numbers about (250-300k in Iraq, 15-20k in Iran; 15-20k in Turkey; and 300k in Syria). The confusion, as you are saying, is that we do not know the worldwide numbers. Please refrain from changing it to 3.3 million, as those numbers are, in fact, from the late 1990s. Around 2 million is probably the most feasible number. If we have under 1 million in Bet-Nahrain, you think there are over 2 million people in Galuta (the diaspora)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I remember reading that 800k Assyrians from 1.5m left Iraq. Where did those 800k go? Also, I doubt there is 300k left because 1.5m minus 800k is still 700k. I also remember reading that other sources put the remaining number at 500k rather than 250-350k....

ALSO, I remember reading there was 1.2m Assyrians in Syria now the number is 400k? 800k from Iraq and 800k from Syria don't just disappear off the face of the planet.... ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 00:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I am sorry for the caps lock I put in "Identify" above. I think this a discussion that Assyrian communities must undertake. In regards to the Iraqi Christians, the estimates were that prior to the Iraq War, there were some 1-1.5 million Christians throughout the country. Please take in mind that that although there was not a significant community, there was small Arab Christian presence, most likely in the 100-300k. There were some 600-700k Christians who fled Iraq -- they moved primarily to Syria, Lebanon,Jordan (where there was almost zero Assyrian presence prior to the war), and western countries.

The 1.2 million number in Syria is utterly outrageous. There was a very small Assyrian population in northeastern Syria before the genocide and then after the Simele Massacre some fled to Syria to establish small villages along the Khabur river -- where the Assyrian concentration remained to stay even through the Syrian Civil War. These totaled some 300-400k who identify as Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs. According to NBC, there were at most some 1.6-1.7 million Christians throughout the country. Most Christians in Syria are Arabs who belong to Greek Orthodox or Syriac Orthodox (SOC) denomination. The fault here was to equate a large portion of the Arab-speaking and Arabized Christians of the SOC with identifying all as Assyrians. The original numbers were really, really off. That's why we're fixing them. The ADO, and other Syriac/Assyrian organizations hold that we are really 300k-400k in Syria. Sorry for this long post. I think you make a valid point about our population figures; why are the umbrella organizations not updating their numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Dudes, WP is based on sources (sometimes this does not mean facts but alas :) so stop fighting on the population numbers and simply use the data available in the sources and don't forget to make a reference to the sources. On the other hand, bot Infobox and the text clearly state there are 25 k in Turkey (at most) and then in the population map Turkey is in the colour spared for 50 k to 100 k. Please correct that map or I will delete it. (Or correct the population number for Turkey.) Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The numbers given by Simo Parpola are simply incorrect, he never made a statistic about our people he just made a simply estimate about what he thought. But we know through our organisations and parties in the US, EU, Australia... a more accurate statistic which is between 3.3 m and 4.2 m. There where about 1,4 million Assyrians in Iraq according to the Iraqi census of 1987, thats under 2 million only in Iraq in 1987 so its impossible that the figures are under 2 million worldwide now. And the user Penguins53 are removing sources like of the Assyrian population in Netherlands just becauses hes personal "contacs" doubt these numbers?! Its not about you personal opinions, i know from Assyrian organisations of Netherlands that there are at least 20,000-30,000 only Syriac Orthodox Assyrians in the Netherlans, and not like you said just a few hundreds. If you and your perosnal contacs only include the number of people from the Assyrian Chruch of the East then it might be right, but thats not about the Church affiliation. More than 1 Million Assyrians left Iraq since 2003, where did they go? If you dont belive these numbers than thats your buissness but stop changing the facts just because you dont believe it. Elvis214 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And adding to your post about that "majority of Christians in Syria are Arabs from the Greek Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox", yes the Greek Orthoox identify themselves as Arabs but the Syriac Orthodox Christians in Syria, also those which do not speak Syriac always consider themselves as "siryaniya" which means Suryoyo/Suraya = Assyrian. The majority of the Assyrians speak only Arabic that's no reason to exclude them from statistics. The most Assyrians in Iraq call themself for Iraqi Christians should we exclude them from the article? No they are still Assyrians and thats the the main thing. Elvis214 (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Syriac > Assyrian

yet another useless opinion thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
this is unacceptable to redirect searches about Syriacs to articles about Assyrians, we (Syriacs) do not accept the Assyrian/Ashuri/Athuri naming period Wikipedia have been hijacked by a Assyrian theory supporters, I have noticed that Syriac articles one by one been replaced, edited and falsified information. This is a planned attack against the Syriac Aramean identify. No wonder the Assyrian groups never gained any political success among the Syriac-Chaledan-Assyrian groups because they resort to such methods, not different from Baath parties propaganda to erase other people's identifies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.152.150 (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Syriac People redirecting to Assyrian People. Not all Syriacs are Assyrian this is fallacy. The Syriac Poeple that call themselves Assyrian can not prove or verify that they are purlly Assyrian with out doubt. In fact all evidence points to the fact that they are of Aramean heritge. The majority of Syriacs refer to themselves as Arameans. The Syriac poeple page should not redirect to Assyrian people page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syriac Association of Australia (talk • contribs) 01:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Tell me where are all your evidence to say that we are Arameans ? The fact that the word Suryoyo comes from the Akkadian word for Assyrian ? or maybe because we live in north-Mesopotamia for more than 5000 years and speak the official language of the Assyrian Empire ? And also because all the other people of the middle east know us as Assyrians and not as Arameans ? In fact you don't have more proof to say that we are only Arameans, we are from Assyrian heritage and maybe a little bit of Arameans since they lived in Syria not between the Tigris and the Euphrates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daywono (talk • contribs) 13:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC) You are simply wrong Suryoyo is not an Akkadian word as usual as with all your non scince based "facts" on this page, you make up "knowledge" and call it truth, the fact is which is proven by the poster below that Arabs call and know us in these arabic words "Aramin"(Plural of Aramean) or "Syrianin"(Spelling which translates Suryoye). It´s very obvius that you are a so called "assyrian" which is making up facts to fit your own false purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikel swe (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Shlomo, i am a Syrian-orthodox Aramean from Syria and in my hometown nobody calls himselfes Assyrian or Ashuri, but Oromoyo or Suryoyo. But let's be honest we are neither pure Assyrians nor Arameans since there were dozens of different semitic groups in the Levant including Mesopotamia with similar languages and cultures, and every group competet with each other or mingled. Just because the Arameans were from Syria doesn't mean they were only limited on this area. Have you ever heard from migration of the peoples? For example the Turks they are original from central asia or there are many people in North America with English ancestry who emigrate from the British island/Europe. I find it ridiculous when Assyrians claim they would speak Assyrian and not Aramaic, although the Assyrian language is dead. It's like when Australians say they speak Australian and not English. Language is an important identity for a nation without language you lose culture. How can you say then we are from Assyrian heritage when the ancient Assyrians have been assimilated into Aramaic culture and intermixed with them? Perhaps for a few Assyrian DNA there was nothing left from them while the language of the Arameans is still alive and important to us especially for our Chritian background. BTW just because many people may call us as "Assyrians" means nothing. The Spaniard call Germans Alemán. The word Alemán drives from Allemanic a Germanic folk which lived in Switzerland and southern Germany, but what does modern Germans have to do with it since they are not Alemannis but the Spaniard call them like that? It is not clear where the word Suryoyo really comes from. Some historians say that the Greeks have it derived from Assyria and called the Aramaic Christians by this name. The Aramaic Christians have taken this name to distinguish itselfes from the pagan Aramaic speaking people. A new nation was born namely the Syrians, but since the Arabs uses this name and many of our people do not want to be associated with Arabs or Islam they go back to the old name or other names such as Assyrian, and this is the real dilemma. The article should be called Syriac people not Assyrian to be neutral!--Hansestd (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC) You're right we're a mix of people of the ancient middle-east and speak a dialect of Aramaic but saying it's false to say we speak Assyrians is like saying Italians don't speak Italian, they speak Latin, but let's be honest : We never said : "Ahna oromoyena" in the homeland, nobody in Tur'abdin (or syria) used that name, it's just recently, when they immigrate to Europe and be influenced by those of Syria and the church, they started to use Oromoyo. The right name for our people is Assyrian because WE are Assyrians, the world know us as Assyrians,and also because Assyrian have a political meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daywono (talk • contribs) 00:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC) You don´t Speak Assyrian because There is NO language called "assyrian" nor has there EVER existed a language called "assyrian" the Ancient but now extinct assyrians spoke Akkadian but that language is now dead as can be. Aramean is the language that all Syriacs(Arameans) speak even those who call themselves Assyrians this is fact don´t come up with pseoudo knowledge based in your own personal beliefs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikel swe (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Well, there is a big difference when you say that you speak Assyrian even tough you mean Aramaic, because the Assyrian language is dead otherwise you try to distort the facts or to deny it. For example an Arab who speak Aramaic as its mother tongue can´t say he is speaks Arabic, although he actually means Aramaic, but he justified it because he is an Arab. Italians do speak Italian! Italian is an independent language with Latin roots, but Latin and Italian aren´t the same because Italian has developed to a language of its own and an Italian wouldn´t understand you of you talk to him in Latin. Aramaic and Assyrian are two different and independent languages like German and English, because I often hear from some Assyrians that Aramaic comes from the Assyrian language or is a dialect of it, which is totally wrong. Why do you say we are Assyrians when already mentioned that we are a mixed. So that means that we also could call us Sumerians or Phoenician. I've written the exmaple with the Germans and it doesn´t matter by which name we are known in the world. The Germans call themselves "Deutsche" not "Germanen" because they have nothing in common with the old Germans anymore neither cultural, religon nor language. In reality the history of our nation began with the christianisation not with the Assyrians, Arameans, Sumerians they are history and only the Aramaic language was leaved nothing else. We are completely new and have given up our pagan life and built a new culture based on Christianity with the Aramaic language. Even Aramaic was renamed in Syrian by churches to emphasize this radical change. We have became a new ethnic nation with Christianity. We are Syrians and many Arameans accept this name, but not Assyrian where is no connection to them. Maby it would be better to give our people a new name which is by far best option at the moment. The name should have a christian term which all can identify maby Tur Abdineans or something like that:)--Hansestd (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC) The right name for our people is Assyrian, because Syriac has a Christian meaning in the West and we will continue to be labelled as Christians of the middle east with no land and no name, and also because Assyrian is widely used by all denomination of our people. For the language, I say as an Assyrian nation we CAN call our Aramaic dialect Assyrian, Syriac or Aramaic. No Assyrian deny it's Aramean heritage which is primary the language. Then, We're not anymore Syrians since like you said Arabs took this name for their fake land. You know that Suryoyo come from Assyrian and you said we have no connection with the Assyrians ? Our people use continuesly the name Assyrian (Suryoyo) as an ethnic name and (mshiHoye or suroye for christians), long before "Aramean", everyone know this. Don't use the church to say that we are Arameans or Syrians, there is plenty exemple where our forefathers says we are Assyrians too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E42:5D80:8985:620B:FEF5:11A5 (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Arabs may have took the Syrian name, but why should we be any more Syrians? I don´t care about the Arabs call themselves Syrians, because I know who is really meant by this name. After the fall of the Assyrian empire you get the Nedo-Babylonian empire and after that the Persian-empire. The Arameans are a much younger population than the Assyrians. But WE, the Suryoye or Syrians are part of all these populations as I said before! We are a mixed race, so why do you still remain on Assyrians and not Sumerians? The Sumerians lived before the Assyrians in Mesopotamia or do you like the history of the ancient Assyrians more? With the term Syrian the Greeks designated the Arameans or Aramaic speaking nation, because they were ignorant to see that the people didn´t call themselves Assyrians even though the area they lived on was still known as Assyria after several centuries (read the expample i´ll give you with the name for Germans in Spanish). The Christian Syrians (so are Assyrians, Maronites, Arameans, Chaldeans etc what they are called nowadays) or Syriacs are ethnic SYRIANS of semitic orgin who original were throughout the Levant and Mesopotamia at home. The terms Syrian and Aramean (Greek: Aramaioi) are identical and designate one and the same ethnically people. Suryoyo may comes from Assyrian, but it has a different meaning in this case namely Syrian=Arameans or Aramean speaking people who became Christians, not Syrian=Assyrian or Syrian=Arabs. The right name is Syrian. My parents and grandparents always said we are Suryoye and i am proud about it. --Hansestd (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I don't care if you call YOURSELF Syrian, but to the world it means citizen of the Arab republic of Syria, don't you get it ? The world will never see us as a nation if we follow what you say. You can say that YOU are a citizen of The Arab Republic of Syria but not our whole people, again we maybe Syrians, Assyrians or Arameans or other ancient people of North-Mesopotamia but we can not be qualified anymore as a 'Syrian' nation or people; you are a citizen of the state where you live, but your nation is Assyria... like the kurd, they never say we're Iraqi or Turk or Syrian, They say Kurd and are referred as Kurds in the West. Assyrian is our name that unite us All. I'm also Suryoyo and I'm proud about my ancestors, may they be Assyrians or Arameans, but again Assyrian has today a political meaning so we Have to use it, in order to be recognized by the West as one of the people of the Middle-East, not to be Iraqi christians or Syrians christians or Turkey's christians... I'don't care about what's the 'best' history... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daywono (talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Why are you so upset? In your first entry there was the talk that we are ethnic Assyrians and this was the topic for the following entries. Like it or not, but we are ETHNIC SYRIANS and unfortunately there is an Arab state by that name, but I would never get the idea to take the name of an ancient nation like the Assyrians and tinker me a new identity like a little child and this is the reason why so many are angry about it! Don´t tell me I am the only one here and 99,99% of our people agree with you! What do you mean with political meaning? Maby on local level somewhere in Kurdistan and the United States, where most Assyrian nationalists from Iraq have emigrated and can easily spread their ideas via the English language and English Wikipedia site. What about the other communities or churches? Especially in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden most of our people are Syrian-Orthodox there and call themselves as Aramean and they are known by this name, not as Assyrian. By your logic the term Aramean would also have a political meaning in the West today and this means that you also have to respect their attitude! To come back to this Wikipedia article again it should be called Syriac people only as an ethnicity without political meaning such as Assyrian, Chaldean or Aramean. I know you don´t like it because Syriac would be associated with Syriac-Orthodox Church right!? For political matters do sub pages called Assyrians (present), Arameans (present), Syriac-Assyrians or Syriac-Arameans and please remove silly none Christian personalities like Shalmaneser otherwise we also have to add Aramean persons like Ben-Hadad I to this page to be fair. If you are really interested to have a unification of our people on political level, then you must be willing to compromise and not ignore the majority of us and go your own way which includes a flag and the name, but let our history alone! --Hansestd (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC) You both have a valid point. The Assyrian name was found by early "Assyrian" nationalists who sought to unify all Syriac Christians in a single national identity. Butt's Assyrian Christians is an excellent source on this matter. The correct historical name should be as Hansestd mentioned "Syrians" Suryaye/Suryoye. For the Syrian identity developed by our Syrian fathers refer to Christian Political Thought in Greater Syria on the Eve of the Arab Conquest.--Rafy talk 22:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC) The problem with this article is that it mixes politics with history and ignores facts! The article claims that "Assyrians" are different from other Christian groups in the Middle East, such as Lebanon or other parts of Syria because of their DNA. An ethnicity is not only based on DNA, but also on culture and language. Even if most Maronites speak Arabic as their mother tongue today instead of Aramaic we still have many similarities with them and share the same background, with or without the same DNA. If it is all about DNA then we also have to add half Iraq to the list and remove most numbers from the Arabic people page, because not all Arabs are real Arabs! A similar research was done in Germany, where many Germans are actually from Slavic orgin and not Germanic especially in eastern Germany but do they try to distinguished from the others? Syrians or Suryoye is what really unites us all at least as an ethnicity. From political view I am not against names such as "Assyrian" or "Aramean", but it is hard to give exactly numbers about how many people or Syriacs consider themselves as one of them since there is no official state or document where church representatives agree on a name! For a poltical page called Arameans (present) or Assyrians (present) should be without numbers and none Christian personalities since there was no Christianity at the time of Shalmaneser or Ben Hadad, but I see no problem problem that both or even more sites can exist alongside as long as it is about politics and these movements are real. However, this page should be maintained with the numbers and persons (Assyrians, Arameans, Chaldeans etc) who were born after christianisation of the Levant and Mesopotamia but renamed into Syriac people or Suryaye/Suryoye. Persons who are neither Assyrian nor Arameans should be just called Syrian in Aramaic as a neutral form, otherwise citations should be given where this person claims to be Assyrian or whatever. --Hansestd (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC) I don't think mixing politics with history is a problem, after all we wouldn't have talked of a single identity of all West and East Syrians if it wasn't for people like Addai Scher, Naum Faiq etc. who were essential in the making of the "mythology" of the Assyrian people that trace their history to ancient near eastern empires. This is analogous to the propoganda behind the creation of the modern unified nations of Germany and Italy. The Maronites were indeed part of the Syrians but they were absent in the early nationalist awakening of other Syrian Christians. Anyway Maronites have completely abandoned Syriac for Arabic and their culture have merged with that of their Arab neighbours. I don't think that this article defines the Assyrian based on DNA, even if it's so it should be corrected. This page is called "Assyrian people" because it was assumed that this is the most popular name in English language, refer to WP:COMMONNAME. I realise that there is a trend to call the group Assyrian/Syriac as in Swedish census and Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac the US census, the last name seems also to gain prominence in Iraqi minority politics. I therefore don't mind a rename if a consensus is reached.--Rafy talk 13:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Syrians don't unite us at all, but in our language i think Suryoye is the right name, othuroyo was a new name. But I maintain, we should'nt use the term Syrians since it means arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daywono (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Syrians unites us only as an ethnicity with the same language, religion and culture that's it. I have no doubt for this name for our ethnicity and everything else would be historical falsification. On political level we are not united otherwise we wouldn´t have "Assyrian", "Aramean" and "Chaldean" groups out there. But I agree we you Daywono I wouldn´t use the Syrian name for politics today except for our ethnicity of course, where our identity now times is based on and many people seem to forget this. But the question is, if all Syriac people must be forced to merge on political level. Even that will not happen, when already many of us don´t know their identity and chases ancient peoples. Of course it would be great to see one single group with one flag and name, but there is no reason to say there can´t be even more groups with different (only) political names such as "Assyrian" or "Aramean" to be recognized by the world. Arabs are also known by different names in politics such as Iraqis, Algerians or Egyptians, but they are united by their Arab background. In magazines people in Iran are known by thier political name namely Iranian and not Persian (ethnicity) and I bet many people don´t know it. If you keep your Assyrian flag in the camera the world will call you Assyrian and not according to your ethnicity and the same applies for Arameans. Don´t worry about it.--Hansestd (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Again we use the name Assyrian for this article only because it is more common in English, you might think it should be renamed to Aramaean people another one thinks Chaldean is a better answer but it comes at the end to WP:COMMONNAME and not to which one is more correct. I personally do use the terms Eastern and Western Syrians when editing historical subjects before the 18th century but these terms are no longer used by scholars and are thus no longer appropriate.--Rafy talk 16:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Rafy, I thought Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia where facts and truths are something worth or are you affraid because of an editing war?--Hansestd13 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Any user can change anything in the article using WP:RS. You should take into account the wide variety of opinions on origins an identity. Changing the name is a different matter however since we have other criteria for it.--Rafy talk 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC) My two cents is that we should do as the Swedish article does writing Aramean/Asyrian/Chaldean and in the article mention that it is so because a name conflict exists. And to those who said that the Aramaean people assimilated in to the Assyrian people are wrong by the definition of the word Assimilation in almost all known cases where assmilation of a people has been successful it always the people being occupied that take the language of the people they got assimilated with in this case the Arameans if truly assimilated would have spoken akkadian and not reversed which shows that the so called assimilation was very unsuccessful or more likely it just didn´t happen. The ancient Assyrians was waring allot being a people of the sword which most likely rendered thei men extinct, that left the Arameans who where a people of the Pen and didn´t care much for wars to influence the Assyrians to take their language and traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikel swe (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC) The problem is that most of them think they are Assyrians because they live on an area which was indeed part of the Assyrian empire. But what people are now living there? Kurds, Arabs and Turks of course. The Assyrian Empire extinct thanks to all its wars and the cities and villages were repopulated by the Arameans and the Assyrians who were left intermixed with them. The same thing happens nowadays where Kurds and Arabs move to our deserted villages or make us a minority there but our faith prevents us from mixing with them!--Hansestd13 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC) A compound name is a solution that worked in Swedish and Arabic Wikipedia's. I would also vote for it if it satisfies most users here.--Rafy talk 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Assyrians and Arameans are actually two different peoples anyway! There is CULTURAL similarity, but they speak differing languages, live in different regions and have different genetic profiles. Yepiskoposian et al., Iran and the Caucasus, Volume 10, Number 2, 2006, pp. 191-208(18), "Genetic Testing of Language Replacement Hypothesis in Southwest Asia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Assyrians and Syriacs are actually no different from each other; both groups speak Aramaic, both have the same culture, and both are equally persecuted by Muslims. By technicality, calling each other Assyrian or Syriac isn't wrong because Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs all speak Syriac and most of Assyrians live around the Assyrian heartlands. It's extremely shameful however that the Arameanists, Assyrianists, and Chaldeanists don't unite or support each other. They are all one and the same Mesopotamian people. Foreign politicians, like Erdogan, Hafez Al-Assad, and Massoud Barzani, are exploiting our division and it's shameful because we listen to them and let them divide us further. Right now we are arguing over what to name ourselves which is stupid because you don't want to call yourselves Assyrian, Aramean, or Chaldean; then at least call yourself what you are: Mesopotamian ܠܹܐ ܢܲܚܦܝܬܘܿܢ? ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 16:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC) @talk..There never was a Syrian Race in Antiquity, or now. The term Syrian is an Indo-European, Indo-Anatolian and Hellenic corruption of Assyrian...the vast majority of scholars accept this, and it is backed up by archaeological proof in the form of the Cinekoy Inscription. Initially the term meant Assyrian to the Indo-European speakers of Asia Minor, and it applied to the inhabitants of the land of Assyria (which did not include modern Syria or Lebanon, except the northeast corner of Syria). Under the Seleucids the term was also applied to The Levant, an area known previously as The Land of the Amurru, Aram, Aramea and Eber Nari..a land where (excepting the north east) the inhabitants were never Assyrians (or Syrians=Assyrians) but Amorites, Eblaites, Arameans, Phoenicians, Ugarites etc. The term Syrian originally meant Assyrian, it is now inaccurate to use this term when describing Assyria proper or the Assyrian people. Chaldean Catholics ARE however Assyrians, ones who entered communion with Rome between the 16th and 18th centuries, and most do accept they are ethnically Assyrian. Most Christians in Syria ARE actually Arameans, they are culturally similar, but geographically, ethnically, historically, linguistically and genetically distinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Where does the word Syrian come from? It comes from the word Assyrian. So how can there be a Syrian Race, this is rubbish. The Greeks caused this confusion in 300 BCE. They called all of the Semites from what we now call Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Anatolia, Iran and Jordan as Syrians and we know this, so why are people still using Syrian and Aramean for the native people of Northern Iraq??????? Before the Selucid Empire the name Syrian just meant Assyrian people from Assyria, from then afterwards it applied to all sorts of unrelated peoples in different places, not one race or place. So there is no Syrian race, and if there ever was one, it meant the Assyrian race. How can some people not get this???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.29.174 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC) I doubt that any of you "Assyrians" have read the comments above you. Then why are you not writing comments directly to Hansestd13 or Maikel swe statements. You always give the same garbage of you and do not get into a real discussion. Should I help you?? 92.26.29.174: "Where does the word Syrian come from?" Hansestd13: "...With the term Syrian the Greeks designated the Arameans or Aramaic speaking nation, because they were ignorant to see that the people didn´t call themselves Assyrians even though the area they lived on was still known as Assyria after several centuries (read the expample i´ll give you with the name for Germans in Spanish)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZUoreu9 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC) I am collecting "consensus" to have the forced redirection from "Syriac People" to "Assyrian People" removed, see the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syriac_people#Protected_edit_request_on_11_November_2014 @Maikel swe: @Hansestd13:@ZUoreu9: Sr 76 (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Simeon Stylites was not Assyrian

He was from the extreme northwest of syria in modern day adana. There is no mention ever of him having Assyrian ancestry, only syrian ancestry and the definition of "syrian" is still debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuryanAntiochia (talk • contribs) 08:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Syrian and Assyrian are being used interchangeably in the article. As in the descendants of people of the Syrian race in antiquity came to be frequently known as Assyrians in modern times.--Kathovo talk 14:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

They should not be used interchangeably. There is no evidence connecting the West Syrians of Antiquity to those Christians that hail from the Nineveh plains. In fact there is undeniable evidence that the term Syrian was applied on those Arameans west of the Euphrates, and not the people who called themselves Assyrian, Ashurian, or Othurian. In fact the quotes used to back up the assumption that the term Syrians was applied to the Assyrians are from people who under examination claim things contradicting many other historians. Palestine was part of Syria in the antiquity, so what makes you think Assyria(or appropriately called Othur) was really Syrian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.240.87 (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@talk - There never was a Syrian Race in Antiquity or now. As you well know, the term Syrian is an Indo-European, Indo-Anatolian and Hellenic corruption of Assyrian...the vast majority of scholars accept this, and it is backed up by archaeological proof in the form of the Cinekoy inscription. Initially the term meant Assyrian to the Indo-European speakers of Asia Minor. Under the Seleucids the term was also applied to The Levant, an area known previously as The Land of the Amurru, Aram, Aramea and Eber Nari..a land where (excepting the north east) the inhabitants were never Assyrians (or Syrians) but Amorites, Eblaites, Arameans, Phoenicians, Ugarites etc. The term Syrian originally meant Assyrian, it is now inaccurate to use this term when describing Assyria proper or the Assyrian people...UNLESS it is explained that it meant Assyrian in antiquity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Numbers Based on Assyrian members of the Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Church, Ancient Church of the East, Syriac Catholic, and Syriac Orthodox"

I will remove the numbers "based on different church members" since we can not just count the memebrs of the different churches up, first of all the church memebrship do not reflect the ethnic population, and the numbers of the source seems not be very accurate. Let us just use the source of AUA (Assyrian Universal Alliance) till we get another source of the ethnic population, it is also the numbers in which the AUA represent the Assyrians in the UNPO. Elvis214 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Dude, you can't just keep on putting the AINA numbers which are not based on anything. The 3.3 million number: yes, I understand, this is from the UNPO.

Adding up the members of the churches is at least statistically plausible. You don't have influxes of groups "converting" into Assyrian Christianity. 99% of those aforementioned churches are ethnically Assyrian, so it's safe to say that, yes, in this case, church membership does, to some degree, represent an ethnic group.

You should leave the 1.7 million number as a conservative estimate. It is foolish to keep on removing a clearly sourced and fact-based number, whereas the 4.2 million is a.) 20 years old and b.) not based on evidence or facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm just saying that there's really no way that there are over 4 million people who identify as Assyrian, Chaldean, or Syria worldwide.

We have a solid 300,000 in Iraq, 15,000-20,000 in Iran; some 15,000-20,000 in Turkey; and a few hundred thousand in Syria. Then, there are most likely some 200,000 in the U.S., 100,000-120,000 in Sweden, some 20,000-30,000 in Australia. And the rest are spread out in smaller populations throughout the world. That is nowhere near 4.2 million.

I'm not saying that 1.7 million is 100% reliable. It's a range, and a reliable conservative figure, at that. The page should say 1.7-3.3 million. Not 4.2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Pre War Population of Assyrians in Iraq was between 1-1,5 million, so now it dropped to 300,000. There was 1-1,5 million in Iraq but where are those at least 700,000 who fled? In Syria the number range from 700,000 to 800,000 only for the Syriac Orthodox Church, alone in the al Aassakeh Governorate about 200,000 mostly Syriac Orthodox Assyrians. Elvis214 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous

Syriac people (or Syrians/Arameans سريان/آراميون) are a different ethnic group from the Assyrians. They have a different language and national identity. It is unacceptable to get the "Syriac people" redirected here.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly not the consensus among any past or modern scholars and academics. "Syriacs" might not say that they are "Assyrian," and "Assyrians" might not say they are "Syriacs," but both "groups" would certainly say that they are of the same people and heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

How is that unacceptable to get Syriac People here ? Why do you want to divide us ? ܙܳܟ ܡܶܩܫܰܬ ܗܰܬ ܘ ܒܰܒܳܟ , We are Assyrians/Syriac not 'Syrians' since this terms now refers to a citizen of the Arab Republic of Syria! We ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܐܘ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ are ONE PEOPLE, FROM MESOPOTAMIA : BETWEEN the TWO RIVERS. Don't associate us with Arabs and others 'Syrians' (Unfortunately they 'stole' our name). Can't Even write Syriac and you dare to say that Assyrians and Syriacs are two differents people ? We share the exact same language : Classical Syriac which is understandable by both Syriac/Assyrians, we share same customs and life style. In some Areas we lived together (For example Mydiat : where there was Chaldeans adherents and Syriacs Orthodoxs members, Dyarbakir (Omid), Qamishlo, in numerous village in what is today Irak...). We do not accept such claims which are completely false and just aims to feed all the misleading theories/claims of unscrupulous people! Bar-Neshro (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)ܒܪܒܪܩܐ

Culturally Assyrians are the same as Levantine Syriacs, however ethnically, linguistically, geographically and genetically they are not. Assyrians are those Syriac Christians from ASSYRIA; Ie Northern Iraq, Southeast Turkey and northeast Syria...a Christian from Damascus or Beirut is clearly not an Assyrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2014

Hi,please,

I want to change the arabic (banu ashoor) to the Syriac name of our people : ܣܘܪܝܝܐ. Why did you put Arabic instead of Syriac ? this is completely non sense, it would be like writing (in French) Peuple Anglais in the English people page... Plus, banu ashoor is completely false... Arabs never call us by that name, they use Ashuri or Suryani... 'AynHaylo (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done.--Kathovo talk 13:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you, please, add the word ܣܘܪܝܝܐ like other people's wikipedia page where their name are spelled in their language and alphabet ?'AynHaylo (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done, added name unvocalised and without syame, transliteration is omitted since it varies.--Kathovo talk 09:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Lede: on names- Syrians, Arameans, Syriacs, Chaldeans?

Regardless which name is "more correct", Arameans is also used by scholars. See here and here for examples. Please do not remove them.--Kathovo talk 13:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Aramean is not used by Scholars to describe those people from Northern Iraq and its surrounds though. Scholars usually reserve that for Christians from Syria. Also, why use a name rejected by all Assyrians. Assyrians accept Assyrian, Chaldo-Assyrian and Syriac, but none refer to themselves as Syrian or Aramean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

[1][2][3] are just a few academic sources I collected in 5 minutes to support the usage of Arameans and Syrians.--Kathovo talk 09:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

But not by Assyrians themselves. We would not use foreign designations describing the English would we? So why use terms not used by Assyrians themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 12:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, Becker is in a minority position among scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 12:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

So Becker, Fiey, Wilmshurst, John Joseph, Macuch, Brock... are all in the minority, that's some big minority don't you think?--Kathovo talk 11:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Eddie Drood, we wouldn't use "foreign designations" describing the English because this is English Wikipedia. The analogy is closer to the Greeks calling themselves "Hellenes": we nevertheless use Greeks here. The only issue is what are they called in English-language literature, and it seems from Kathovo's links that Aramean is used. It's not relevant that Assyrians may or may not object - although if it is proporly sourced it could be noted that Assyrians do object to it. DeCausa (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I put an edit in regarding names, with three references, and pointed out that in the west a number of other terms were used ie Syrians, Arameans etc were used by various western sources. This was referenced and balanced, but removed???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldnt this be made clearer? Assyrians dont call themselves Arameans (they are a different race), and when you use the names 'Syrians' and 'Syriacs' these are historical derivatives of 'Assyrians' originally, but now Syrian means a citizen of Syria, most of these are now Arabs, Kurds and Syriac Arameans. Chaldean is only a religious term. All this should be made much clearer. The way it is written makes it look like Assyrians are Syrians or Arameans or related to the old Chaldean tribe. You can pint out what scholars called them and why in a seperate paragraph, because it is misleading.

@talk and talk The difference here is Greeks call themselves Hellenes, whereas Assyrians never call themselves Arameans. And the useage of Arameans is usually used to refer to Syriac Christians from Syria, not northern Iraq. Links were also provided from numerous scholars stating that the original and proper name was Assyrians, and that other names were later add ons. I propose a change to this section, with a separate paragraph explaining the different useages in English. Also, Kathovo, many scholars do not use the term Aramean in reference to Assyrians, and Assyria/Athura/Assuristan was never called Aram. Syria and Syrian are generally accepted to be originally only derivatives of Assyria, not explaining this clearly leads readers to assume Assyrians are connected to the modern term Syria, a largely Arab Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 04:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You're putting the conflict as yourself against the scholars which won't get you anywhere. In Wikipedia verifiability beats truth anytime.--Kathovo talk 09:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@talk - Scholars? I can provide links to scholars who say clearly that Assyrians are Assyrians, and these later names are both innacurate and Western add ons. Artur Bohac a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Travis, Hannibal. Genocide in the Middle East: The Ottoman Empire, Iraq, and Sudan. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2010, 2007, pp. 237-77, 293–294, Hannibal Travis http://conference.osu.eu/globalization/publ/08-bohac.pdf, Mordechai Nisan Nisan, M. 2002. Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle for Self Expression .Jefferson: McFarland & Company., Eden Naby [[ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/02/the_end_of_christianity_in_the_middle_east]], as well as Biggs, Frye, Parpola, Tsertelli, Badger, Brinkman etc etc...So, providing links from SCHOLARS to support this position, which you seem to accept as TRUTH, does not count? Or do only certain scholars count? Once more, the other names issue should be in a separate short paragraph. And WHY remove Ashuriyun, Assouri and Chaldo-Assyrian ??? Is it because they sound too Assyrian??

Basically, if I can support my edits with references, I should not have them reverted. I propose to edit again, WITH Scholarly References. So there can be no reason to revert it again on the grounds that they are unsupported by academic study and opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned, some identify as Assyrians others as Arameans or Chaldeans etc. None of the sources you bring prove what you claim, bring a sufficient number of scholarly sources that claim that "only" Assyrian is the correct form. Ashuriyun is a modern Arabic names and Assouri is Armenian, it makes no sense to put those names in the lede.--Kathovo talk 19:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@talk - That is simply incorrect. (A) - No Assyrians identify as Arameans. This article is about Assyrian People from what was Assyria, Athura, Assuristan (Mesopotamia, modern Northern Iraq) and NOT Middle Eastern Christians in general. Chaldean Catholic is a theological term which most Chaldean catholics accept as such, as they do the inclusive term Chaldo-Assyrian, which is more accurate and valid, and yet utterly illogically removed by yourself!!!!. I guess because the word Assyrian is mentioned, this goes against your personal opinion.

(B) Ashuriyun is NOT a modern term, it is Medieval, circa 12th century AD, it PREDATES Chaldean and Aramean as a term used to describe Assyrians from Mesopotamia, as does Assouri in relation to Chaldean, therefore these terms are more valid than those. Again, I guess because the word Assyrian is mentioned, this goes against your personal opinion.

(C) The terms Syrian and Syriac originally derived from Assyrian, most scholars accept this, and it is mainstream opinion. Originally it meant only Assyrian, it was only during the Seleucid Empire, some 600 years after the term was first used to describe Assyria, that the term was added as a description of The Levant also. If these names are to be used, this should be pointed out.

(D) The term Syrian is a misnomer when applied to Assyrians today, as it refers to the Syrian Arab Republic and refers to a geographic region not inhabited by Assyrians and which was never Assyria.

(E) I did not state that Assyrian was the ONLY term used to describe Assyrians, but that it was the oldest, the preferred term and the most accurate. Also that the other terms were applied by outside, largely Western sources from the Seleucid period onwards.

(F) The numerous sources I provided state point (E) quite acceptably.

(G) The other names listed at the beginning of the article confuse, at least without an explanation of how they came to be.

(H) There are Separate Wiki entries for Arameans, Arameanism and Phoenicianism which cover those Near Eastern Christians who are not Assyrians, do not come from Assyria/Mesopotamia/Iraq and do not see themselves as Assyrians. They should have their own sections.

(I) There is no such Ethnicity as Syrian or Syriac. As a Nation, Syria refers to the Syrian Arab Republic. Originally Syrian and Syriac meant Assyria specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(a) This is still your own opinion, it contradicts Brock's, who is probably the most authoritative figure on the history and culture of Syriac Christianity.

(b) "Ashuriyun is NOT a modern term, it is Medieval", care to show a reference to this claim? It is still an Arabic name, it's like you start the British people article with: "British also known as Les Britanniques".

(c) Nobody disputes that one derives from the other, it still doesn't mean we should ditch the more modern one. Tajik is derived from the Arab tribe of "Tayy", does this mean that Tajik is fake and we should rename it to Tayy?

(D) and (E) Again this contradicts with Brock's assertion. Bring a reference as authoritative as Brock then we can argue about this.

(F) You just mention names, How are supposed to verify those claims without proper references? i.e. book names and page numbers.

(G) On the contrary, they serve to show that this article talks exactly about the same people that Morony calls Arameans and O'Leary calls Syrians. Not having them will create a confusion.

(H) They are still considered the same people with different names, as per Iraqi, American, Swedish, Australian census bureaus, as well as various leading political and nationalist organisations that support compound names such as Motua, here is aquote from Zowaa as well:[4]

“ ... It is characterized by the unity among our people with their multiple names as Syriac, Arameic, Chaldean, Assyrian the true inheritors of the Babylonian and Assyrian civilization of Mesopotamia – Beth Nahrain. ”

(I) Strange claim, how can reconcile this with the book titled "History of the Syrian Nation" written by an Assyrian intellectual from Urmia in 1910. Again your sourceless claim is contradicted by Macuch and Brock.--Kathovo talk 10:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Just want to give my opinion : As an Assyrian nationalist, I would suppress Arameans, Chaldean and Syriac. But unfortunately, a part of our people are attached to those terms which are a part of our identity, culture and history. At international level, like Kathovo mentioned it, our people is not recognized only under the name Assyrian : Iraq use (or used not sure) the term Chaldo-Assyrian. France also use the term : Assyro-chaldéen for all our people. USA use the term chaldean/assyrian/syriac since 2000. same for Sweden.

For the term Syrian, it should only be mentioned in the section self-designation for the simple reason that it refers to a citizen of the state of the Arab Republic of Syria... 'AynHaylo (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Very simply, if these other names are mentioned, there needs to be a short section explaining them. All of the Christians of the Middle East very clearly are not identical, any more than the Muslims are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@talk The term Ashuriyun was first mentioned in the 10th century AD by Abu al-Faraj Muhammad Ibn Ishaq al-Nadim, hardly a modern term, and it certainly predates Chaldean and Aramean.......According to Bayard Dodge, in his index titled Fihrist al-Nadim, Abu al-Faraj Muhammad Ibn Ishaq al-Nadim, who described many people, gives a definition of the word Ashuriyun (Arabic for Assyrians) as such: Their master and chief is named Ibn Siqtiri Ibn Ashuri. They collect revenues and profits. In some things they agree with the Jews and about other things they disagree with them. They appear to be a sect of Jesus (Dodge 1970).Italic textThe Fihrist (Catalog): A Tench Century Survey of Islamic Culture. Abu 'l Faraj Muhammad ibn Ishaq al Nadim. Great Books of the Islamic World, Kazi Publications. Translator: Bayard Dodge.

And yes, Assyrians used Syrian BECAUSE it originally meant Assyrian, this IS mainstream opinion among linguists, historians and orientalists today.

Michael the Syrian - ... That even if their name is now "Syrian", they are originally "Assyrians" and they have had many honourable 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" (the all meaning Aramaic speaking Christians), while the other part which was in the east of Euphrates, going to Persia, had many kings from Assyria and Babylon and Urhay... Assyrians, who were called "Syrians" by the Greeks, were also the same Assyrians, I mean "Assyrians" from "Assur" (Ashur) who built the city of Nineveh.Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 12:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael the Syrian - "...the kingdoms which have been established in antiquity by our race, (that of) the Arameans, namely the descendants of Aram, who were called Syriac." Michael the Syrian is talking about those people who WERE of Assyrian origin but not ARE Assyrian. Seriously do you consider modern Egyptians as the same Egyptians I mean those people who lived in ancient times and built pyramids? They have nothing in common with them anymore because they are now Arabized and Islamized and the same can be said about the so called Assyrians who were assimilated into Aramaic culture and intermixed with Arameans. Do you think just because Assyrians lived in Mesopotamia they are the owner of it? Why are Kurds, Turks and Arabs there if that is Assyria. Do you know what Migration Period is? Should I point out that even other Semitic ethnicities lived there before and after the Assyrians, e.g. the Arameans had many city-states on this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZUoreu9 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually found the text in original Arabic here, the exact text is:

الأسوريين وصاحبهم ورئيسهم يقال له بن سقطرى بن أسورى يسقون الأموال والمكاسب ويوافقون اليهود في شيء ويخالفونهم في شيء ويظهرون ملة عيسى.

This ambiguous sect is named Aswariyīn after their leader bin Aswara, obviously they have nothing to do with "Nestorians" who are repeatedly called Suryān throughout this book.--Kathovo talk 14:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Well said @Kathovo: I am collecting "consensus" to have the forced redirection from "Syriac People" to "Assyrian People" removed, see the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syriac_people#Protected_edit_request_on_11_November_2014 @Kathovo: Sr 76 (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is the term Assurayu removed? It is both the oldest and original term, yet it is always removed? Also, why cannot there be a paragraph under the lede explaining these names, they are indeed confusing. The inclusion of the innacurate term Aramean and the MODERN THEOLOGICAL term Chaldean are confusing if just left unexplained. Also, it should be made clear that Syrian derives from Assyrian....there after all no such race as Syrians or Syriacs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 14:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014

"and the now largely Arabic-speaking, but previously Western Aramaic-speaking Syriac-Aramean Western group ("Syrian Orthodox", and Syrian Catholic") found mainly in south central Turkey and Syria."

must change Western Aramaic-speaking to Eastern Aramaic-speaking, Turoyo and the few others dialects related to Turoyo are Eastern Aramaic dialects, if not there will be confusion with the true Western Aramaic-speaking people of Maaloula and surroundings villages. also Syriacs Orthodox/Catholic are also in Iraq... in Addition of this, those who speak arabic are mainly found in Syria and those who speak Aramaic are found in Turkey and Iraq (In Iraq they speak the same dialect as Eastern Syriacs/Assyrians). must also change Syrian Orthodox/Catholic to Syriac because Syrian refer to a citizen of the Arab Republic of Syria and not an ethnic Syriac. 'AynHaylo (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I approve of this change. Penguins53 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Penguins53

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Since Penguins53 says go for it, I would love to help out here, but in order not to make things worse, you need to be very clear. Is it only a matter of change "Western Aramaic-speaking" to "Eastern Aramaic-speaking" in the first case, and change "Syrian" to "Syriac" in two cases in the same sentence? Sam Sailor ^Sing 20:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not clear. Yes it's primarily about change Western Aramaic to Eastern Aramaic and replace Syrian by Syriac.

I would also add Iraq as one of the native country of Syriacs since there is a few village and Monastery. I would also suppress the "now largely Arabic-speaking" since most of Syriacs especially those of Europe (those who are active culturaly and politicaly) speak Turoyo (There is 2 channel broadcasting in Turoyo : Suroyo Tv and Suryoyo Sat and one Web TV : Assyria TV) with some who speak the same dialects of the members of the Church of the East/Chaldean Catholic Church. 'AynHaylo (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, 'AynHaylo. Having spend a couple of minutes reading the talk page, I'll pass on this one and leave it for Kathovo. This I do solely due to my own incompetence regarding the subject and the article's editing history. Happy editing, Sam Sailor ^Sing 23:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the divisions as requested and removed the reference since it doesn't state what it is claimed. As for name it is more complicated, during antiquities and middle ages "Syrian" was a more popular ethnonym as attested by names of various historical personalities, e.g. Ephrem the Syrian, Isaac the Syrian, Michael the Syrian, etc...--Kathovo talk 11:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The official name of this churches is Syriac. Syrian is no more used since it can refers to Arabs, Kurds or others citizen of Syria. This is the principal Reason. Secondly, you use the official name of the Assyrian church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church and Ancient church of The East, you should do this also for The two Antiochian Syriac Churches. If you based yourself on the historical names, just suppress Chaldean Catholic Church, Ancient Church of the East and just leave Church of the East. In the same passage, you use the official name of the Eastern Syriac Churches, but for the two Western Syriac Churches you use their old name... Also you should also add Iraq as one of the countries where Syriacs have historical presence : Maphrian of the East, Mor Matay Monastery, and few villages... 'AynHaylo (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well Syrian was a common historical name that is still widely used in academic circles, see for example [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] [14]... Removing the term will create even more confusion for those unfamiliar with the naming controversy.

I will request lowering down protection level of this page so that you may edit the page yourself.--Kathovo talk 13:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've edited it. I don't think it will bring more confusion for those unfamiliar with our naming controversy. Syrian is already mentioned at the beginning of the page and has a dedicated part for the name controversy. You should raise the editing level.'AynHaylo (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldnt this naming issue be made clearer? Assyrians dont call themselves Arameans and they never have (they are a different race), and when you use the names 'Syrians' and 'Syriacs' these are historical derivatives of 'Assyrians' originally, but now Syrian means a citizen of Syria, most of these are now Arabs, Kurds and Syriac Arameans. Chaldean is only a religious term. All this should be made much clearer. The way it is written makes it look like Assyrians are Syrians or Arameans or related to the old Chaldean tribe. You can point out what some scholars called them and why in a seperate paragraph, because it is misleading at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.29.174 (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Assyrians in Syria

By simple math if 40 Syr Catholic + 40 Chaldean + 40 both Assyrian + 200 Syr Orthodox total number would be between 300 - 400 thousand.[15][16][17]. Gabriel Moushe confirms this by citing 400-500 including the Maronites.[18]--Kathovo talk 12:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your numbers, Kathovo. The numbers currently listed seem highly inflated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In Syria alone the Syriac Orthodox Church members range between 700,000 and 800,000 people, just in the Nothern al Hassakah Governorate about 200,000 mostly Syriac Orthodox Assyrians. The most sources are not very accurate and old, there are no real statistics about our people in Syria, but the most new estimates put the Syriac Orthodox Christians in Syria at 800,000 and 80,000 in the USA http://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2014/04/article_3083979.html/ Elvis214 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You mentioned 200,000 in Hasaka which is a number I find reasonable 2 decades ago when most of those Assyrians ended up in Germany and Syria. I can't imagine that 600,000 would live only in Aleppo and Damascus. We know that Greek Orthodox and Catholic make up the first and second largest denominations, that wouldn't leave much for Assyrians. BTW news articles are not dedicated sources, they probably got their figures from Wikipedia.--Kathovo talk 19:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of Assyrians?

What ever happened to pictures of ancient Assyrian kings such as Sargon and Essarhaddon that were originally included in the picture template at the upper right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Some should be added back, The pictures should reflect the Assyrians through the ages. Maybe someone who wants to split modern Assyrians from their ancestors with a POV agenda has done this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.29.174 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I myself am agnostic about those specific pictures. Ancient Assyrians spoke a different language, had a different religious and customs than modern ones. One can claim since modern Italians are different from Romans then there should be a distinction here as well. I do believe in certain continuities but this still only makes them ancestors of Assyrians, something similar to how French relate to the ancient Franks.--Kathovo talk 19:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless we have good sources that there is direct continuity, then they should no more be included here than Alexander should be included as Macedonian. — kwami (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

???? There are PLENTY of sources!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Either option is acceptable by the relevant guidelines, and there's no consensus the proposed title is superior for other reasons. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Assyrian people → Assyrians – Common and standard form. Jaqeli (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose, both formats are equally acceptable so no reason to move. False premise that "Foo people" is not common or standard. Both formats are widely used and there are multiple "Foo people" articles per Irish people, English people, French people, Syrian people and many others. DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support: the name as is, "Assyrian people," is clunky. The term "people" is better reserved for nationalities and not ethnicities. Furthermore, it adds confusion to the topic; it can make people think that Assyrians are are group of people, like a tribe or nomadic group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 11 May 2014‎ (UTC)

• Support per nom and User:DeCausa (sic). The proposed name is precise while being more common and more concise. Unlike the examples given by User:DeCausa of Irish, English, and French which are ambiguous without "people" appended, "Assyrians" is not. (Note that the former examples are DAB pages while the latter redirects here.) —  AjaxSmack  16:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Syrian people was an example as well. Brazilian people, Jamaican people, Palestinian people etc etc DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that both forms are used and I have no big problem with either but there are policy reasons to go with the more common and concise form. —  AjaxSmack  10:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both forms are "common" and "standard." Personally, I prefer the "X people" form and feel it reads better. If there's no reason given other than personal preference to move it, then oppose. SnowFire (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Both the nominator and I gave policy-based opinions (WP:UCN/WP:CONCISE). Neither of these are personal preference, at least on my part, unlike "I prefer the 'X people' form and feel it reads better". —  AjaxSmack  10:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not hiding the fact it's my personal preference. The nominator said "Common and standard form" which presumably implies "X people" is not an understandable "common and standard" name. This is simply wrong as a quick trip to Google will show. "Assyrians" is more concise, I'll grant that, but that is a comparatively minor factor here - it's equivalent in weight to article title stability, for instance, which would argue for keeping it here. SnowFire (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Move rationale has been effectively challenged above, and the other arguments to move seem to be purely personal preference. Against this, Assyrians is seriously ambiguous, being more often used to mean the people of the Assyrian Empire, as distinct from for example the Akkadians, who are also part of the Assyrian people but are not in this sense Assyrians. (There may even be a case for moving the article currently at Assyria.) Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I'm guessing that there are previous move discussions in the archives of this talk page... has anyone looked at them to see whether any of the discussion there is relevant? Andrewa (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Misinformed Information

disruptive soapboxing thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
((The Assyrians (Syriac: ܣܘܪܝܝܐ), also known as Syrians, Syriacs, Arameans, and Chaldeans (see names of Syriac Christians), are an ethnic group whose origins lie in ancient Mesopotamia. They are a Semitic people who speak, read, and write distinct dialects of Eastern Aramaic exclusive to Mesopotamia and its immediate surroundings.)) First chaldeans do not exist as ethnic group, some followers of the East Catholic Church since the sixteenth century started to called themselves Chaldeans, but they have nothing to do with the Chaldean dynasty that ruled Babylon. Secondly Syrians (السريان) are not Assyrians, Ashourians (اشوريين, اثوريين), not the same ethnic group. Greek historians named the Arameans of syria (Syrian), The Arabs named All the Arameans(Nabat نبط) and Syrian سريان.. Nabat is Aramaic tribe, Nabataeans Who call themselves Assyrians nowdays they don't descendants the ancient Assyrians(Ashourians), they are Syrians Arameans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.5.245 (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Chaldeans have never claimed to be ethnic Chaldeans. Many of them are in actuality Arab. Do not confuse Assyrians who call themselves Assyrian, but follow the Chaldean Church. Those are Chaldeans by sect, but are Aturaya. Alqosh, TelKef, Tesqopa, and Batnaya are Chaldean and are Christian Arab settlements. I dare you to go to one of those villages and call them Assyrian, they will have you kicked out of their villages. Stop misconstruing history on Wikipedia. It only makes Aturaya look bad. You guys are not Assyrian; you are Kurds, Persians, and Armenians. Neither Syriacs or Chaldeans are Assyrian. We can tell you are 3ajam by your accent, looks, mannerisms, everything about you screams 3ajam. Save your fallacies to yourself.--CommonSenseofCourse (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Syrians not Assyrians

disruptive soapboxing thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The name "Assyrian" (Ashourians) is new name of group of Syrians, the name "Assyrian" is never used at all before the 19th century. the historical name to what is currently called the Assyrians are the "Syrians" (specifically "Syrian Nestorians) The new Assyrians they are not an ethnic group separate from the rest of Syrians. ethnically they were and still Syrians there is no different from the rest of Syrians. The only difference between the the new-Assyrians and the rest of Syrians is the Church that they belong to, and that was historically called the Nestorian Church. The name "Assyrians" launched a on Syrians Nestorians for the first time in the 19th century under the influence of the British explorers and missionaries. The goal of launching this name on them was to try and separate them from their surroundings and find isolationist tendency among them. In the 19th century the French persuaded the Maronites of Lebanon, that they are separate people from their surroundings. This is the same as what happened in the the Jazeera area. British persuaded Syrians Nestorians in the mandate of the people of Mosul that they separate from their surroundings and that they were the descendants of the ancient Assyrians. and of course Syrians Nestorians they are not ancient Assyrians. Syrians Nestorians do not differ from the rest of Syrians. They originally Aramean people residence the Gezira area and northern Iraq since the last millennium BC. That's why I deplore some of the Syrians use of the term "Assyrians" (including even in the official media, and this is a real disaster). Assyrians are a extinct people had been living in Jazeera area 2,500 years ago. Christians in Syria and Iraq belong to 3 peoples: • Arabs • Syrians • Armenians What so called Assyrians is name of imaginary people invented during the 19th century under the direct influence of colonialism. Syrians are citizen of the Arab Republic of Syria. A Suryoye u a Othuroye HA 'amo ne. Dlo furshono. 'Amo Hiro, Bas furshono, kolozamlan Hdoyutho. We still speak the official language of the Assyrian empire which is an Aramaic language with its particularity, we still retain some names which are only found among us (such as Ninus, Shamiram, Sanharib...), we may be Arameans or Assyrians ethnicaly, but, today 'Syrians' means citizen of the Arab Republic of Syria, we can't use that name anymore. Assyrian is OUR name, we don't say that we're 100% ethnically Assyrians, since the middle-east has been invaded by a lot of peoples, there was mass deportation etc... it's the same for 'Syrians' Today Syrians are mostly arameans, armenian, greek, arabs, and Iranians for kurds etc... Most of north Iraq is ethnically semitic, Assyrians, Jews, Arabs, Syrians, and kurds... Also the people from our churches who are in Iraq, Turkey and Syria are in no ways Arabs. The few Arabs who could be in our church could be found in Israel, Jordan and may be Lebanon. But I can tell you ONE THING, THOSE WHO SPEAK SURYOYO / SURYAYA ARE NOT Arabs, not Kurds or Armenians. Go and learn 7 names of your grandfathers before coming here and saying things which just aims at feed stupid peoples, stupid and false theories. Our People is spread in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and, sorry to inform you but as a NATION, we are Assyrians, our most prolific nationalists, from Ashur Yausef to Ninos Aho, are celebrated by the people of the 2 mother church ('idto Suryeyto trisat shubho and idto dmadenho d'Othuroye) for there writing, there love of our language and nation, so please, don't divide us, English, Americans, Australian, and new-zealand know us as Assyrians. Syrians are, today, another people, they have there wiki page, and we, Assyrians have our own.that's all.'AynHaylo (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Too many pictures in the right-hand side infobox

There are way too many pictures of Assyrians in the infobox. Around six or nine people are enough. Does anyone else agree there needs to stop being additions?

I think that the more people we have (prominent people of course), the better. The template can be rearranged to accommodate lots of pictures, for example the template for Italians. Assyriandude (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Then can we make it look more condensed like the Italians page? Because ours is too spaced out now.

I added 1 column which removed a row. It looks much better. If more people are added, we can switch to the Italian page version. I just have to crop a few of the portraits so that they are all the same size. Assyriandude (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Economic demographics

I've read that the Coptic Christians in Egypt are generally more affluent than Muslim Egyptians. There appears to be a similar situation in Lebanon. Now what about the Syriac communities in Syria and Iraq? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Why Assyrian Nationalism Will Fail

disruptive soapboxing thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Assyrians in Iraq are a minority; the majority of the Aramaic speaking Christians in Iraq are either Chaldean or Syriac, neither of the two claim to be Assyrian. There are Assyrians that are part of each church, do not confuse a pupil that attends the Chaldean Catholic/Syriac Orthodox Church, but calls himself Assyrian. Chaldeans are of Arab ancestry and Syriacs are of Aramean ancestry. Assyrians have nothing to do with ancient Assyrians. They are simply a group of Persian Christians/Armenians that were fooled by British Evangelists. They are Ah-Toor-A-Yah(Atoraya), meaning the people of the mountains, not Assyrians pertaining to Assur. Their issue is complex and they are bending the truth about the Christians of the Middle East, specifically the Syriacs and Chaldeans. They have nothing that proves that they are in fact Assyrian; the only thing they have is references pertaining to Assyrian Nationalists, which many have been successfully refuted by Syriac and Western scholars. They do not seek to unite neither of the groups, they simply wish to push their own agenda so that they can claim benefits from Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. Without Syriacs or Chaldeans on their side, they are unable to achieve any of their goals. They are not going anywhere in politics, the only threat they oppose is here on Wikipedia where they can misconstrued history. The joke is on them however because no scholar or researcher uses Wikipedia as a reference. They are a joke in Iraq and many of them ran during the seventies because their citizenship were stripped for being Iranians, which they truly are. Neither Syriacs or Chaldeans faced that issue in Iraq during the seventies. Many Assyrians speak funny Aramaic and Arabic. Their Aramaic does not sound like Syriac or Chaldean Aramaic; it sounds much like Persian than anything. They are not from Iraq as they have you believe, most of them come from Iran, but because of the Sykes-Picot Agreement many of them immigrated from Iran. They were considered as "ajam" in Iraq. The Massacre of Simele of 1933, was due to their fake Assyrian nationalism. The Syriacs and Chaldeans saved them from ethnic cleansing and this is how they repay them. They are much related to Kurds more than anyone in Iraq, this is apparent through their common mannerisms and nationalism, as well as their language, accent, and looks. Assyrians, please continue to disgrace yourselves, please, the more the merrier. The truth hurts. I feel sorry for your children because they are fed this fake idea of Assyrianization. Many of them will not know that they in fact are Kurds, Persians, or Armenians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommonSenseofCourse (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC) You are the biggest troll that we have ever seen on this page, we Assyrians are Assyrians, we Syriacs are Assyrians, we Chaldeans are Assyrians. That is all. We are one people, Assyrians are Syriacs and vice versa. With all respect to the Armenians, Kurds, Arabs and Persians, we are not a part of you, we are our own people with our own language (Suryaya/Suryoyo ܣܘܪܝܝܐ) and our own religion. Our name : Suryoye or Suryaye goes back to thousand years ago, this has been more than 2500 years that we use this terms to designate us as a people, our language is an Aramaic language influenced by Akkadian (mainly loanwords but with a few grammaticals structures). .ܐܚܢܐ ܚܕ ܥܡܐܢܐ݂ ܟܠܢ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܡܢ ܐܫܘܪ ܡܘܬܐ ܠܒܥܠܕܒܒܐ ܘ ܟܝܢ/ ܚܝܢ Here is a video of us Assyrians, taking up arms and forming millitia (around 3000 for the Assyrian democratic movement and around 2000 for the Assyrian Assyrian Patriotic Movement) in Iraq (source AFP : Agence France Presse) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cxcr7SLyso I will leave you with the following pages, we are Assyrians/Syriacs those two terms are synonyms: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Syriac-Military-Council-MFS/495168480591866 https://www.facebook.com/SyriacsNews?ref=stream https://www.facebook.com/pages/Institut-Assyro-Chald%C3%A9en-Syriaque-FRANCE/191535884215845?ref=stream https://www.facebook.com/pages/ESU-Youth/633474350000894 https://fr-fr.facebook.com/pages/Institut-dEtudes-Aram%C3%A9ennes/384281555025566 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Assyrische-Br%C3%BCderschaft-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%86/500892583268758 https://www.facebook.com/pages/%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B4%D8%A7-Dwekh-Nawsha/691995807561137 'AynHaylo (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC) We Arameans are Arameans; we Syriacs are Arameans! If you call him/her a troll then you are the biggest liar on earth with your false claims. Do you speak Akkadian to prove that our Aramaic language was heavily influenced by Akkadian? Give us some samples, because most of you are not able to prove it. My family is from al-Hasakah, Syria and neither my parents, grandparents nor our friends from there referred themselves as pseudo Othuroye. They have always referred themselves as Suryoye (members of the Syriac-Orthodox Church = Christians) and as Oromoye (ethnicity). http://www.aramnahrin.org/English/index_en.htm , http://www.aramnahrin.org/English/Wikipedia_And_Aramean_Spiritual_Genocide.htm (Wikipedia: "The source and platform for spread and promotion of “Assyrian” terrorism") , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PLsZf5y8hU (A movie about the Arameans produced "Under the Apostolic blessing of his holiness Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka Iwas I", Syriac-Orthodox Church) , http://www.wca-ngo.org/ --Suryoyo6544 (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC) To All umthonoye Oromoye: Hi, my family is from Tur'Abdin, the heartland of Suryoye (and gabore by the way). And in Tur'Abdin, nobody called themselves Oromoye or Othuroye. they just used Suryoye as a name for our people. Oromoye is a new name that appears in the 50's while Othuroye, appeared in the end of the 19th century. Suryoyo in our language refers to our ethnicity and not to Christians. Everybody knows that Suryoyo comes ultimately from Ashur. There is evidences, read the paper of professor Simo Parpola: http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v18n2/Parpola-identity_Article%20-Final.pdf From the time of the Assyrian Empire, we've adopted that name for our people, our church and our language. then : U Fateryarkaydhan, yaumo merle, d"u Admo da 'Araboye ko qoli' ba waridaydan", Anaqa gidheshwat ruhokh u u'amaydan 'Arab ? Check his wikipedia page, he was baptized Sanharib Iwas, because, his parents called themselves Assyrian. He was born in Mosul and probably, his parents or grand parents spoke Suryaya (Easter Dialect). He just make a film in which our Aramean heritage is brought under light. No Assyrians denies its Aramean heritage (history and language). You seems to think that our church men knows very well history, so what about this letter : http://sor.cua.edu/Personage/PZakka1/19811129Name.html In this letter, writen in 1981 by, U mhasyo, Moran mor Ignatius Zakai, Qadmoyo bet Iwas, He clearly says that : We, in our Apostolic power, declare our distress and disapproval to the new names which have appeared lately and which have been attached to our Church and our people such as 'Assyrian', 'Aramaean' and the like". Our church was pro-Assyrian when the Assyrian nationalism emerge, then, the seat being moved to Syria, it became pro-Aramean. And Now, our new patriarch, Moran Mor Aphrem II clearly refers to us as Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac, when he was in Iraq, due to the recent event affecting our people, he uses Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac during many interviews, because, we are one. Then, watch this interview (in Suryoyo) of Hasyo Hanna Aydin made by SuroyoTV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz4LmCoJLvE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 'AynHaylo (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Around 23min40s, Yausef beth Turo ask him where are the roots of the Aramean Nationalism and where it's started, because Hasyo Hanna Aydin is "U Babo di Oromoyutho", especially in Europe, where he spread his idea. Hasyo Hanna Aydin answer Yes, then he says that he's the father of Aramean Nationalism, then he says that before, there was no Oromoye... You can watch the rest of the interview. Aramean nationalism started like this among Suryoye, especially among those of Europe. Here is a emission (in Suryoyo) on how, Arameans nationalists replace all the things that was Assyrian by Aramean: http://www.assyriatv.org/2014/03/anti-assyriska-revisionister-avslojade/ They provide evidences, you can even check by yourself. Also, I said that our language is influenced by Akkadian, I didn't say heavily. I just said that there is many loan words from Akkadian and just a few grammatical structures. Here is a paper: http://www.aina.org/articles/rothbotmal.pdf You can again check the wikipedia page of Syriac and all it's dialect. Do not call me a liar, I provided you links, interviews, paper written by renowned professors on the subject, read them. I will finish by retaining a few things: Suryoyo come from Ashur. Assyrian nationalism began long before the Aramean nationalism. Aramean nationalism was supported by the church because the seat is in Syria (under pressure byt the baathist governement). The church's current position (Syriac orthodox church) on our name is : Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac. We, Syriacs, Assyrian and Chaldeans are one people. Chaldeans is a fake name created by Rome. Do not divide us, do not deny our heritage, language, identity and history as we are the indigenous people of Mesopotamia. Assyrian is well known in English speaking countries. Assyrian is the best name politically and historically. 'AynHaylo (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC) In Syria, we only used Suryoyo as well and even in the diaspora we are still using this name in Aramaic. Oromoyo is definitely not a new name for us, because we already knew it in Syria, but we did not use it in our daily life. The old, pre-Christian name Aramean gained popularity especially in the diaspora, because unlike in Arabic and Turkish you do not have two designations for Syrian in most other languages such as English. Most of them do not wanted to be associated with Muslims or Arabs. This is the reason why the Syriac-Orthodox Church replaced "Syrian" with "Syriac". My grandparents were born in the 1920s and they did not care about nationalism or ethnicity topics and they always said that Suryoyo means Christian no matter if it is derived from Assyrian or not. Assyrians and Chaldeans are those people who are no Syriac-Orthodox Christians and belong to other churches, but ethnically we are the same. The name Aramean was known long before the 1950s: Abu Al-husayn 'ali Ibn Al-husayn Al-mas'udi (born 895 in Baghdad, died 957 in al- Fustat,Egypt) says: "Tur Abdin is the mountain where remnants of the Aramean Syrians still survive." Karl Eduard Sachau (born in 1845, died in 1930): "The nation of the Arameans: This national name later, mainly in consequence of Jewish-Christian literature influences, gave way to the Greek designation Syrians." Flavius Josephus (c. 37 – c. 100 AD (or CE)) was a 1st century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and later settled in Rome. He says: "Aram had the Arameans, which the Greeks called Syrians." Prof. Theodor Nöldeke (born in 1836, died in 1930): "Since the times of Alexander [the Great], if not already somewhat earlier, people have started to transfer the name of the Syrians exclusively over the prevailing in Syria nationality, and in this way this originally political-geographical term became an ethnological one that was identified with the local Arameans." "Assyrian is well known in English speaking countries", Assyrian is known in English speaking countries thanks to Assyrian fascists from Iraq and unfortunately English is lingua franca, so they can easily spread their propaganda around the world. "Assyrian is the best name politically and historically" We will never accept the names of extinct nations such as the Assyrians just because they had a cooler history and buildings than us Arameans or other semitics such as Arabs. "No Assyrians denies its Aramean heritage (history and language)", Those people who say that want to mislead the Arameans so that they align with the Assyrians and forget their Aramean/Syrian Christian identity by paying homage to Assyrian/Akkadian history. Most Assyrians claim to speak Assyrian (Akkadian) written with Aramaic letters, and because the Arameans originated in Syria they can´t be of Aramean ancestry. Assyrians claim also that our people always called themselves as Othuroye. You are the first Assyrian I know who says that we only used Suryoyo (Syrian in English) in our homeland, which is right. "Suryoyo come from Ashur", Suryoyo is a synonym for us Arameans especially for those Arameans who became Christians and adopt the Greek designation to distinguish themselves from the pagan Arameans. I do not deny that Suryoyo may derives from Assyria although other theories from scholars exist. But neither me nor my family or the others have ever associated Suryoyo with the old Assyrians, only with Christianity and the Arameans. "Assyrian nationalism began long before the Aramean nationalism.", this doesn´t make it any better or is a proof that we are Assyrians. You say that the Aramean nationalism was supported by the church. What about the "Assyrian" Church of the East and the European colonists and missionaries who brainwashed the Suryoye over there in Iraq? Should I point out the word "Assyrian" in the churches name is of European origin and was geographically meant to avoid the Nestorian name. I doubt there are there any chronicles from the "Assyrian" Church of the East to support an Assyrian racial identity before the 19th century. --Suryoyo6544 (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Oromoyo is a new name for our people, even the church said it. I provided you sources, interviews (of Hasyo Hanna Aydin made by SuroyoTV, around 23min and 28min, emission of Assyria TV) which explain why and when Aramean nationalism began. But you seem to ignore it, by this it seems that you clearly are stubborn and will belive all the false propaganda of SuryoyoSAT and SUA who even want to make Na'um Faiq an Oromoyo nationalist. Then, you say Oromoye was not a new name, c'mon, Everybody agreed that Oromoye is a new name for our people, nobody knew it, just like Othuroye before the Assyrian nationalism emerge. Also, I will repeat it, In Tur'Abdin, Suryoyo is used for our people, especially for syriac Orthodox, "Suroye" was used to mean christians. There is no Assyrian nationalist that claim to speak Akkadian, It's like saying Oromoye nationalist believe they speak Aramean while they just don't understand anything when some TRUE Aramean of Maa'loula speak their Aramaic language. Also, you just quote some writers, historians who use the name Aramean, but I could also provide you with plenty of writers and historians using the name Assyrian for our people. "Extinct nations" we could also say the same thing for Aramean, what will you say to those Suryoye who are in the Ninveh plains, living in the same village since the Assyrian Empire, you will say that they are not Assyrian just because some writers or professor said something or just because we speak an Aramaic language ? Suryoyo means Syrian in English ? No, Syrian means citizen of the Arab Republic of Syria. "Suryoyo is a synonym for us Arameans especially for those Arameans who became Christians and adopt the Greek designation to distinguish themselves from the pagan Arameans" Do you have evidence of this ? Do you have proofs ? it's the argument of SUA, SuryoyoSat and the like. Also, it's you who brought an argument like the film The hidden pearl and provide links involving the church. I showed you that the position of the church is completely confused. moreover, Why do you talk about the Church Of the East ? Don't you realize that, it is we, Suryoye that started Assyrian Nationalism ? See, the most prominent Assyrians nationalists were Suryoye: Ashur Yousef, Na'um Faiq, Hasyo Yuhanon Dolabani, Ninos Aho... We used that name because it's our history and our heritage.'AynHaylo (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Assyrians is the name of Iranian-Iraqi Christians in iraq the name is only used among them not by the Sereyan people in Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq. Sereyan is the only name of our people, the name Sereyan سريان is mentioned in the Arab historical books as the indigenous people of Syria and Iraq and Jordan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.78.47.224 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC) WOW, "The Arab historical books" is that your ultimate source ? WE ARE the indegenous people of MESOPOTAMIA, more precisely, North-Mesopotamia, and, you use, as a source, a book written by ARABS, a people who colonized Mesopotamia and came long after Akkadians, Assyrians, Arameans, Hitites, Mitani people who were there at least 2000 years before Arabic/Islamic civilization rise. We have 3000 years of uninterrupted written history (Aramaic language) and you dare take this book as a source ? We are ܣܘܪܝܝܐ, which comes from Assyrian, IT has been proven, all prominent assyriologists agree that we are Assyrians, READ ALL THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE before coming here and edit the page.'AynHaylo (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC) @AynHaylo: The prominent Assyriologists Prof R.Rollinger considers it to be etymological. In other words very specific to how the word at that point in time developed or originated and not reflection of ethnicity.Sr 76 (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Flag removal?

I noticed this IP edit removed the Syriac-Aramaic flag. This looks like a suspicious edit, but I know nothing of this subject. Alsee (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Was Nestorius Assyrian?

If so, should include him in Category:Assyrian people. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No Nestorius was Greek.Sr 76 (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

possible false reference

Within the Section on Assyrian Continuity there is a reference to George Percy Badger it continues as....."travelling through Upper Mesopotamia in the period before the mid to late 19th century AD archaeological discoveries of ancient Assyria, describes coming upon a Christian people calling themselves Assyrians, and bearing distinct Assyrian names, who were also known as Assuri by their Armenian and Kurdish neighbours."

The reference on the Wiki Page for the above content, is a book called Nineveh and its remains. Which is a book by A.H.Layard not badger.

Badger's Journal about his travels through Mesopotamia (also in two volumes) is called "Nestorians and their Rituals". Can the person that provided this quote and reference please provide a page number, because i cant find the above mentioned content?

Sr 76 (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through Badger's "Nestorians and their Rituals" and there is no mention of the name "Assyrian" at all...this means.....it's a false reference on the Assyrian People Wiki Page. Sr 76 (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Saggs taken out of context

H.W.F. Saggs is used as a reference of Assyrian Continuity, Since Saggs dedicates an entire section of chapter 9 with the title "Assyrians a Nation not a Race".
Saggs states "It was, in fact, the cities of Assyria [the direct region of ashur not the broader empire] which were the destinations of a majority of unknown deportations. Assyrian cities thus became cosmopolitan and polyglot, with the possibility that within them people of actual ancient Assyrian descent were a minority"
When it is clear that the subtext or intention of this section "Assyrian Continuity" is that the Modern day Assyrians are the descendants of the Ancient Assyrians. This conclussion from Saggs is taken out of context.

Sr 76 (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of personal opinions, not sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Its not really taken out of context. All peoples have input from other sources. An example would be modern English People, who have had clear input into their population from Danes, Norse, Celts, Normans, Frisians, French Huguenots etc etc. However they are still culturally, historically and ethnically English. These Jews, Elamites, Hittites, Arameans etc deported into Assyria became Assyrianised, and thus Assyrian. If we are to use the argument that other people were part of the Assyrian population and thus Assyrians arent Assyrians, we would then have to pretty much say that ALL ethnicities on earth are not who they say they are! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not! We are all aware that Assyria (just like every other Empire) deported people into Assyria, what tended to happen is that these people were Assyrianized and became Assyrians, this the modern Assyrians are the descendants of those of Ancient Assyria, nobody is espousing racial purity, which is impossible for almost all peoples, but that does not prejudice Assyrian continuity at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Artur Boháč - Another Questionable reference

Artur Boháč was a GEOGRAPHY student from the Czech Republic that presented a paper on GLOBALIZATION, to use this a reference sighting "Assyrian Continuity" is absurd.

Sr 76 (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning: New rules for this page

This article has been a cesspit of some of the most ridiculous ethnic tendentious editing for years and years, from all sides of this sorry mess of an ideological conflict. This needs to stop. I will therefore be applying a new set of administrative rules here, with a zero tolerance approach to tendentious editing:

1. Any editor making substantial content changes in the article that have the potential of being contentious, without discussing and explaining them on the talkpage beforehand, will be blocked.
2. Any editor reverting another editor without explaining the need for the revert on the talkpage beforehand (with the exception of cases of plain and obvious vandalism), will be blocked.
3. Any editor calling another's edits "vandalism" when they are not will be blocked.
4. Any editor who makes edits in the article that are obviously aimed at giving preferential treatment to one of the ideological parties or terminological preferences involved (pro-"Assyrian", pro-"Aramaean" etc.) or at bolstering up historical claims associated with such preferences, will be blocked.
5. Any editor misusing the talkpage for any form of argument about which of these ideological positions is "correct" or about his own opinions regarding their ethnic identity, will be blocked. The only thing everybody is expected to use the talkpage for is to discuss how this group and its history are described in high-quality, neutral reliable sources, and how the article should be changed so that it reflects those sources.

Please pay special attention to this last point, as pretty much everybody has been abusing the talkpages for those kind of arguments in the past.

Any such blocks will be imposed immediately, without further individual warnings, for periods no shorter than two weeks on a first offence, and regardless of whether an editor is experienced or new. You have been warned.

That said, the article clearly needs to change, as it is currently quite obviously written from a tendentious perspective. To get the ball rolling, I will myself make a start by entirely removing the "Assyrian continuity" section, which appears to be one of the most tendentious bits and whose sourcing is abysmal. This is a somewhat uncommon thing for an administrator to do, but given the special history of this article and the long-term well-documented inability of its habitual editors to maintain a constructive and encyclopedic editing debate on this topic, I believe it is justified and will not change my status as an uninvolved and neutral administrator. (Which means I also reserve the right to block editors should they reinsert it, as I would consider such an edit a clear violation of principle 4 above. Material about the idea of an "Assyrian continuity" may ultimately be reincluded, if and when the overall NPOV profile of the article has been fixed and a policy-based WP:CONSENSUS for the appropriateness of such material has been established; not earlier.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This explanation of the terminology "Assyrian Continuity", may assist you making administrative decisions. The term "Assyrian Continuity" more often than not is used by academics to counter the works of Sidney Smith. Smith concluded that the ancient Assyrians had "immediately vanished" after the fall of the Nineveh 612BC based on the works of the ancient Greek historian Herodotus. There is very little evidence of Assyrians immediately after the fall of Nineveh, but to suggest a mass culling of Assyrians would be incorrect. Which is why we get historians such as Saggs , Briggs etc...making comments about rural inhabitants of the direct Assyrian region carving out an exists for themselves. This does not implicate these academics with referring to "continuity" from the ancient-Assyrians to modern-Assyrians as often is used.Sr 76 (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the Sidney Smith quote:

Sidney Smith, writing in 1925 (p. 130), stated: 'The disappearance of the Assyrian people will always remain an unique and striking phenomenon in ancient history. Other, similar kingdoms and empires have indeed passed away, but the people have lived on ... No other land seems to have been sacked and pillaged so completely as was Assyria.'

Sr 76 (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean Catholic Church section removed? Why?

The section in the Ottoman Era part of the article explaining how the Chaldean Catholic Church came to be is constantly being removed by somebody called Penguin 53. Why? It is perfectly valid, and an important part of the history of the Assyrian people. I propose reinstating this, unless someone has a valid reason why it should be airbrushed out of the history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 12:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The Chaldean Catholic Church was founded in northern Mesopotamia, it members and adherents were all former members of the Church of the East, which was also founded in Assyria, and it was originally called The Church of Assyria and Mosul, and its first leader Patriarch of the Assyrians. It was removed because its presence actually confirms Assyrian identity, whilst at the same time exposing the so called Chaldean Identity as a relatively modern theological concept. In other words Anti-Assyrian bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Assyrian people

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Assyrian people's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Frazee":

• From Shimun VIII Yohannan Sulaqa: Frazee, Charles A. (2006). Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire 1453–1923. Cambridge University Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-521-02700-7.
• From Chaldean Catholic Church: Charles A. Frazee, Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire 1453-1923, Cambridge University Press, 2006 ISBN 0-521-02700-4
• From Alqosh: Frazee, Charles A. (2006). Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire 1453-1923. Cambridge University Press. p. 210. ISBN 978-0-521-02700-7.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

ssyrians of iraq are called Athori why is this not mentioned in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.78.248.95 (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference - Simon Parpola

Removal of Simon Parpola as a Reference and from the Further reading list.

Academic criticism of Parpola’s Theories

“[Parpola] gives the impression of Christological theological concepts [being] mapped onto the Assyrian religion”....“Parpola’s presentation over-interprets the text and even scribal inconsistencies...it is surprising to see that the author is using scribal inconsistency as evidence”
- Th. Kwasman’s “The Jewish Quarterly Review 92:1-2 (2001) p229”

Fraham criticises Parpola about this Christological concepts also, describing him as “following a missionary impulse” and compares him to the “Christian Arameans ‘Assyrians’ from Northern Iraq”
- E.Fraham “Wie ‘christlich’ war die assyrische Religion? Anmerkungen zu Simo Parpalas Edition in Die Welt des Orient” 31 (2000-2001), pp 31-45

“[Parpola] may appease some present- day sponsors of the ‘Assyrians’ around the world....unfortunately [Parpola] casts a slight shadow on the scientific value of the entire enterprise”
- F.M.False “Multilingualism on Multiple Media in the Neo-Assyrian Period: a review of the evidence” in the state archive of Assyria Bulletin 16 (2007)pp 112,116,78 and 113

"[Parpola’s] conclusions are too far reaching given the state of Assyrian sources which are limited and very often hard to interpret”
- J.Pecirkova’s book review of Parpola’s Assyrian Prophecies, Archiv Orientalni (1999) p420

“a careful reading of Parpola’s articles and the introduction to Assyrian Prophecies reveals arguments that are often circular and flawed, in which, by virtue of an enthusiastic presentation, what remains to be proved is transformed into evidence for a construction that resembles doctrine more than theory”
- J.Cooper “Assyrian prophecies the Assyrian Tree and the Mesopotamian origins of Jewish monotheism, Greek philosophy, Christian theology, Gnosticism, and much more” in the Journal of the American Oriental Society 120:3 (2000) p430

@Fut.Perf.: Note from the above that Fraham refers to name change of the modern-day Assyrians and the vigour in perusing the name ‘Assyrian’, he refers to them as having Aramean decent.
From the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies (an Assyrian Publication), Introduction by the editor-in-chief E.Y.Odisho (a modern-day Assyrian) “He [Parpola] is the only non-Assyrian international scholar who believes in the historical and cultural connection (continuity) between the ancient Assyrians and the modern Assyrians” E.Y. Odisho “Parpola: A Finn scholar defence of Assyrian Historical Identity” Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 16:1 (2002) p11.

You wouldn’t know that he is the only scholar that believes in the ancestral and cultural connection between the Modern Assyrians and the Ancient Assyrians by reading the “Assyrian People” wiki-page.

Note: Parpola’s theory on how the name Ashuroyo evolved into Suryoyo is in complete contradiction Rollinger’s much more plausible and more agreed with theory. So why the use of the two theories within the same Wikipedia-page? I'm yet to come across a single academic that does agree with Parpola on this. Also, Parpola claims that the Arameans stopped calling themselves Arameans, this is in complete contradiction to the Greek, Jewish and Aramean sources. His theories are nonsense.

Sr 76 (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. There does seem to be an appearance of an overall bias towards giving undue weight to the idea of ethnic continuity, and you have made a reasonable point here that Parpola's position may have received undue weight. I would certainly encourage any editor to continue scrutinizing the current sourcing of these history sections, to check if unreliable sources have been used, reliable sources have been misrepresented, or undue weight has been given to isolated viewpoints, as all this seems quite likely to be the case here. Please post findings about such problems here on talk before taking action removing or rewriting such passages in the article. We need to finally get a proper, source-based rather than belief-based, dialogue about this article going here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this is, that in doing so, it will lead to complete deconstruction of the page. Every topic I can identify with similar issues as the one above will lead to a section being deleted. With nothing being added, since anything that is added will be completely out of place on the page. For example: I was going to provide sources in relation to the topic of "Micheal the Great" this will lead to the current content being deleted, but the actual academic understanding of Micheal the Great's work, the "Syriacs are Arameans" does not fit the narrative of the page (the only reference to an ancient people on the page is an Assyrian one). So where does it go? This means I can only delete content. If the page was called the "Syriac People (Arameans/Assyrians/Chaldeans)" page you would not have the problem.Sr 76 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete the source of Saggs? Simo Parpola? you only want to delete serious scholars with reliable sources and use non scholars like Michael the Great who was a clergymen who also by the way said "Those who were called Syrians were actually Assyrians"

The problem you are talking about has nothing to do with the title of this page, Syriac christians are known as "Assyrian people" internationally its the most common name --SuryoyeGBG (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I think you have missed the point. I'm not deleting Saggs, I am deleting the quote that was used out of context. Parpola's views are far from reliable as we have already have seen. And i am not adding Micheal the Great, he is ALREADY on the page, it was giving an example. By-the-way if you are going to quote someone it's best not to para-phrase, he did not write "Those who were called Syrians were actually Assyrians" Sr 76 (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I took my time reading a bit of J. Cooper's publication, the last one you quoted. This is how he end it on page 443: "I have always regarded Simo Parpola as one of the most brilliant of my own generation of Assyriologists, and nothing in this critique diminishes either the great respect and admi- ration I have for his scholarly achievements or the high personal regard in which I hold him. I fully believe with Parpola that "Mesopotamian religion and philosophy are not dead but still very much alive in Jewish, Christian, and Oriental mysticism and philosophies," but I do not for a moment accept that "The Tree diagram provides the key which makes it possible to bridge these different tra- ditions and to start recovering the forgotten summa sapi- entia of our cultural ancestors,"47 or that Tammuz died "for the redemption of all the fallen souls .. .and his death can be regarded as a token of God's love for all man- kind in the same sense as Christ's redemptory death."48 For this reader, it is too good to be true.". Your quotes are very selective. Critique is a part of that world. There is no doubt that Simo Parpola is one of the most eminent Assyriologists today. Sad to see that your recent edit was all based on this. Shmayo (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I would add that most of the Academics critics he brought up concerns mostly Simo's Parpola theory about continuity/links between Ancient Assyrian religion (Ashurism) and Judo-Christianity while none of this Professors or Doctors have proofs that we have no connection with pre-Christian Assyrians or deny our Assyrian identity. Plus this (theory about continuity/links between Ancient Assyrian religion (Ashurism) and Judo-Christianity) has nothing to in that page which concern modern Assyrian People. 'AynHaylo (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sr76, you cannot simply delete info from the pages by arguing with yourself and saying "per the talk page." No, no one approved the unnecessary removal of sourced, reliable information. Just because some people who disagree with Parpola criticize him does not make him not credible. You should revert your edits. Penguins53 (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

@Shmayo Thank you, still, your own quote does relay a criticism of his theories, I'm sure as an academic he is fine. Whats is being promoted and used on this page are views that the chief editor of the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies himself an Assyrian acknowledges as unconcurred among academics.
@AynHaylo Yes some of the criticisms are related to the christological theories, some aren't. He also shows a propensity to appease the modern-Assyrians and which is very concerning, is he a politician or an academic? "defend the national rights of the Assyrian people"???.......http://www.aina.org/news/20071018142453.htm


@Penguins53, I'm not sure why you are under the impression that the changes need "approval". Please familiarize yourself with the rules:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Warning:_New_rules_for_this_page
Writing your opinion of Parpola is not exactly discussing a reference.
Sr 76 (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@SuryoyeGBG: Firstly edits do not require approval. Secondly refrain from making changes without discussing references related to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Warning:_New_rules_for_this_page
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr 76 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sr 76 why are you removing a well known scholar like Parpola? this is reliable source you don't have any right to do so, even if their are some who disagree with him about certain things. What you are doing is showing 2-3 sentence that are not in line with other historians that is not enough to rule out a scholar like Parpola! why are you not mentioning all the other scholars who agrees with Parpola? --129.16.211.99 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned Michael the Great that he never said "Syrians were Assyrians" well look here

Source from "History of Mikhael The Great Chabot Edition" p. 748:

"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. ... Assyrians, who were called "Syrians" by the Greeks, were also the same Assyrians, I mean "Assyrians" from "Assure" who built the city of Nineveh." --129.16.211.99 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr Sebastian Brock scholar and author of the book "The Hidden Pearl" volume 1 page 8:

"From around 600 BC and forward, available sources do not have enough information to provide us in a satisfactory way to follow an uninterrupted aramaen ethnic identity through the following centuries, therefore it is aramaic language and those who speak it, which is the thread that can be followed through the centuries to date. Although the term aramean originally aimed at an ethnic group it lost it's meaning and came to mean "a person who speaks aramaic". That is why during the Achaemenid Empire, the members of the aramaic-speaking Jewish community in southern Egypt sometimes referred as arameans, when they really mean "aramaic-speaking"

This contradict with Fraham and this theory is in the line of Parpola --129.16.211.99 (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sr76, I did take a look at the rules. What you did constitutes edit warring. Why was another user banned for reinstating the Parpola edits? He is a reliable source and you CANNOT simply remove him as a source just because his views disagree with yours. I'm saying that "approval" is needed because you repeatedly commented that you made the edits "per the talk page." As you see here, your unnecessary edits have drawn a considerable amount of criticism, and it should not have been made. You reverted a user's edits "per the talk page," and were not blocked. Yet the user who removed your edits was blocked for "edit warring." Your removals are unwarranted, but if I try to remove them, I will get banned, which is why I asked Future Perfect on his page what's up and he ignored me. Penguins53 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

What SR76 has done for the first time on this page is begin a proper neutrally minded discussion of the sources. SR76 has presented convincing evidence that Parpola is isolated in his view. The "regulars" on this page, of which you Penguins53 are one, normally just trade back and forth your favourite cherry picked snippets that support your particular POV. Future Perfect has to be thanked for creating the space that enables proper policy based discussion of the issues. Penguins53, your above post adds nothing. Can you cite reliable sources that rebut the points SR76 has made? Remember WP:NPOV says that the article must represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on [this] topic." What eveidence do you have that Parpola is not isolated amongst reliable sources and, therefore, including him does not contravene WP:UNDUE? DeCausa (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@129.16.211.99 this is NOT a history debate. For example the Brock quote you used does not "contradict Fraham" and is not "inline with Parpola", this is your interpretation and hence has no value here. BTW You misinterpreted a simple sentence that I wrote 10 days about Micheal the Great.
Sr 76 (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sr76, yes he critized him for that theory, but he wouldn't consider him "one of the most brilliant

of my own generation of Assyriologists" if most of his theories are "nonsense", as you called them. DeCausa, how is Simo Parpola "isolated in his views"? Did you miss my input above? If he is getting critique for his views on links between Mesopotamian religions and Judo-Christianity, his he isolated in his views? And what would that critique have to do with the "Assyrian people"-article. Please take a look at my input above with the cited source. Shmayo (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Is that how to respons to other wiki user Sr 76? I showed you 3 well known scholars with sources and you claim that its "my" interpretation? this is not the way to discuss you have to take the discussion with other wiki user, this is the reason why it will be edit war in here!

Dr Sebastian Brock theory clearly contradict with Fray there is no aramean identity after 600 BC only aramaic speakers --129.16.211.92 (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@129.16.211.92 - Let me simplify this for you, find me a reference were Dr.Brock names Parpola and concurs with his views. Then find me a reference were Dr.Brock names Fray(??? are you talking about Fraham) and disagrees with his views.
Let me show you how simple it is. Find an academic for example K.L.Ross, that names Parpola, and then give his view. in this case calling him "irresponsible" for encouraging the modern-Assyrians:
"Unfortunately, no such continuity can be documented; and the record shows that the name of "Assyrian" is a recent adoption -- an adoption that was attended by considerable debate, whose record survives in old Syriac language newspapers from a century ago. Merely bringing such facts to light, however, has made scholars, including Dr. Joseph himself, targets of protest, threats, and insults -- while an irresponsible scholar such as the Finnish Assyriologist Simo Parpola has encouraged this with strange claims that the Babylonians, Medes, and Persians were Assyrians, that Biblical monotheism and Greek philosophy were Assyrian in origin, and that "the Christian religion is essentially a religion of the ancient Assyrians" [ibid., note 102, pp.29-30]."

Sr 76 (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Parpola should stay. There is very clearly an Anti-Assyrian bias here. It is actually rather nasty, arrogant and somewhat Racist actually. It is beyond belief that there are people here who wish to expunge any information that supports Assyrian continuity. It is not just Parpola, there are MANY others who espouse a continuity. Some facts regarding the issue that are now accepted by mainstream opinion are A- Assyria existed until the 7th century AD as Assyria. B- The name Syria meant one and the same thing as Assyria originally, and in reference to Northern Mesopotamia, continued to do so. C- Assyria was not depopulated or destroyed after 612-605 BC at all, but continued to flourish.

Assyrian continuity is JUST AS VALID as Greek continuity, Egyptian continuity, Armenian continuity, Anglo-Saxon continuity etc etc..So where are all the sneering, arrogant, condescending racists gathering to deny those peoples rights to ethnic self expression? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Georges Roux - reference deliberately falsified

The section titled "After the Fall of Nineveh" tends to rely on very few references, the main reference being that of George Roux a french historian, author of the book Ancient Iraq. Keeping in mind the main cause of the proliferation of G. Roux's concepts within the modern-Assyrian networks and hence presented on Wikipedia, is an article "The Continuity of Assyrian History" written by a modern-Assyrian named Edward.Y.Odisho (pseudonym Odisho Beth Ahur).

Although Odisho is not sited on the page, only Roux is. Odisho's influence on the "Assyrian People" page is obvious for the following reason:
Odisho sites Roux as a reference, when referring to "strong native Assyrian aristocracy","the resurrection of Assyria....[where before] the towns and villages had been lying in ruins for hundreds of years". Odisho clearly gives the impression (as does the Wikipeadia Page) of an Assyrian revival according to Roux, after the fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C.

However Odisho fails to disclose Roux's very next sentence, where Roux writes "the revived settlements had very little in common with their Assyrian or Babylonian precursors"...."a nation [Assyria] that forgets it's language forgets its past and soon loses its identity". Clearly Roux writes about Assyria, he is referring to the geographical Assyria, not the people.

More from G.Roux that Odisho ignored:
Before the Fall: "The deportees were not slaves: distributed through the empire as needs arose, they the had no special status and were simply 'counted among the people of Assyria', which means that they had the same duties and rights as original Assyrians. This policy of deportation - mainly from Aramaic-speaking areas - was pursued by Tiglathpileser's successors, and the number of persons forcibly removed from their home during three centuries had been estimated at four and a half million. It has largely contributed to the 'Aramaization' of Assyria, a slow but almost continuous process which, together with the internationalization of the army, probably played a role in the collapse of the empire"
G.Roux, Ancient Iraq. p308

After the Fall: "[the Assyrians] could not withstand the profound ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural changes that were introduced by successive waves of invaders in northern Mesopotamia - Persians, Greeks, Arameans,pre-Islamic Arabs - who could be neither kept at bay or assimilated"
G.Roux, Ancient Iraq p423

Although some of the information is accurate, the purpose of the content is questionable since it provides no information about the Assyrian People on the "Assyrian People" page (if anything it's misleading). So @Fut.Perf.: I will leave it up to you to decide. Should the section should be deleted or should I just make changes that best reflect the intentions of the sited academic?
Sr 76 (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would you want to delete the section if you find some of the information accurate? Reaching new conclutions about what Roux could have meant when he talked about Assyria is not something to be done on wikipedia, see WP:NOR. The so-called Aramaization of Assyria is brought up in the section before. What are your suggestions for improvement? Shmayo (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This section is probably one of the many contributions of EddieDrood/81.111.*.* to Wikipedia. Almost everything they add should be removed unless verified by a second Wikipedian. Feel free to blank it.--Kathovo talk 15:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Shmayo, hence the reason why I asked. I haven't reached any "new conclusions" about Roux, it's not like his work is an artifact or manuscript, it a book from penguin publishing, that Odisho cherry-picked from. So i don't think WP:NOR applies.

Sr 76 (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Still, you are making your own conclusion what he meant with the "nation Assyria". Parpola's "Assyrian Identity in Ancient Times and Today" touches this, you should read it. Shmayo (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Roux also states that Assyrian native religion was alive and well into the late 3rd century AD, which is significant. Patricia Crone and Michael Cook also note a strong Assyrian culture and identity between the 2nd century BC and 4th century AD, as does John Curtis and Kevin MacDonald. Perhaps they should all be removed too eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Origin's of today's Assyrian Identity

Proposed Write-up
Today's Assyrian identity traces its origins to the "Archbishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission" in the 19th century AD, where politicians and church leaders alike attempted to avoid using the term 'Nestorians' by using the term 'Assyrian Christians'. Which originally had only meant 'The Christian of geographical Assyria', this soon became 'Christian Assyrians'. The need to avoid the name Nestorians is because it is an epithet link to the 5th century AD Christian heresy of Nestorius. This was spurred on by archaeological discoveries that included the ancient Assyrian city of Nineveh by A.H.Layard. Further to that Layard conjectured that the local inhabitants were of 'Assyrians' origins, since they, like the ancient Assyrians spoke Aramaic. However other archaeologists and missionaries drew conclusions that the Nestorians were from "the lost tribes of Israel" and that they are "Kurds".
Following this the English term Assyrian, and Russian term Aisori came into use towards the end of the 19th Century A.D., it must be noted that the term Syrians was not eliminated and continued to be used by the English. The general adoption of the term 'Assyrians' by mainly the Eastern Syriacs largely started taking place after the 19th century, prior to this native references of the Western Syriacs is Suryoye (in English Syrians/Syriacs) and Suraya (in English Syrians/Syriacs). While in Arabic and Turkish the term Suryani was still used.

My Sources
Anthony O'Mahony, Emma Loosley, "Eastern Christianity in the Modern Middle East"
"This term 'Assyrian' became increasingly popular, encouraged by A.H.Layard's assertion that the Nestorians were the decendant of the ancient Assyrians. The term was later [1976 A.D] incorporated into the title of the church so it became the Assyrian Church of the East"

Adam.H Becker, "Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman World, The Ancient Near East in the Late Antique Near East"
"My immediate response to many of these claims of continuity is: hog-wash. As others have pointed out, Western missionaries to the region in the nineteenth century introduced the idea that the indigenous Christians were an ancient race, or the remains of Nineveh."
p396

David Gaunt, "Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim-Christian Relations in Eastern Anatolia During World War I"
"Toward the end of that century, the English term 'Assyrian' and the Russian term Aisori came into use, and during World War I it made its worldwide breakthrough into the newspapers"
p3
"A.C Tait, Archbishop of Canterbury. was the first major English-language opinion-builder to use the term 'Assyrians' for the Oriental Christians. He did this in a fund-raising appeal in 1870 to set up the 'Assyrian Christian Aid Fund'. The reason given for the use of 'Assyrian' was that it was considered more neutral compared with the negative-sounding Nestorian, with its intimation of heresy"
p16

Sebastien de Courtois, "The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, the Last Arameans"
Interprets Xaview de Planhol: "Were the Nestorians of Hakkari [Assyrians] originally Arameans from the plain 'kurdized' by contact with the Kurds, or were they Kurds who had become Christian under the cultural influence of the Aramaic world?"
p51

Brock, Butts, Kiraz, Van Rompay, "Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Syriac Heritage"
"this [Assyrian] identification was not developed until the 19th century"
"Anglicans, seeking to avoid the 'Nestorian', began to use the name 'Assyrian Christian' for the whole Church of the East"
"the general adoption of 'Assyrian' and Assyrian ethnology by the people themselves came after 1900 under the influence of nationalist writers like Freydon Atoraya"
p45

John Joseph, "The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East: encounters with Western Christian Missions, Archaeologists, & Colonial Powers"
"The people who today call themselves Assyrians are, strictly speaking, members of a cultural and religious group, moulded together into a minority by ties of a common language and, until the nineteenth century, a common church membership which, until the birth of the modern nation-state in the Middle East, was the strongest tie among people."
p32
"Prior to World War I, the Anglican mission to the Nestorians gave the Assyrian nomenclature a new impetus. Formally known as 'The Arch Bishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission' it re-enforced, no matter how unintentionally, the linkage between the Nestorians and the ancient Assyrians. 'Assyrian Christians', which originally had only meant 'The Christian of geographical Assyria', soon became 'Christian Assyrians'. By the late nineteenth century, a few of the educated and politically conscious among the Nestorians, especially those who had immigrated to America, began using Aturaye [Assyrians] in their writings"
p18

Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. retired from the Department of Philosophy, Los Angeles Valley College
"and the record shows that the name of "Assyrian" is a recent adoption"
http://www.friesian.com/notes/note-n.htm#syrian

A.M. Butts, Lector of Semitics in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Yale University: "Assyrian Christians"
"outlining the historical background for the events that led to the promotion of this identification in the nineteenth century and to the ensuing development of an Assyrian ideology within the Syriac communities"
"The earliest systematic use of Assyrian for Syriac Christians seems to have developed in the second-half of the nineteenth century within the context of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Mission in Urmia"


S.Brock, "An introduction to Syriac Studies"
"with the conjecture of some nineteenth century archaeologists and missionaries that the modern Christian population of northern Iraq are the descendants of the ancient Assyrians. This was taken up especially among people of the Church of the East"
p67
"Various alternatives have been adopted, including (by the more secular minded) 'Assyrian' which has caused considerable controversy (and trouble in some countries); a better choice would seem to be 'Aramean'"
p68

M.Levene, "A Moving Target, the Usual Suspects and (maybe) a Smoking Gun: The Problem of Pinning Blame in Modern Genocide"
"the term 'Assyrian' is just plain wrong, owing everything to nineteenth-century western orientalisim and nothing to the community it purports to describe"
p8

A. Fortescue, "The Lesser Eastern Churches"
"A favourite name now among their Anglican sympathizers seems to be 'the Assyrian Church'. This is the worst of all. They are Assyrians in no possible sense."
p7

J.F Coakly, "Church of the East and the Church of England, a history of the Arch Bishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission"
"I refer here to the link created between the modern 'Assyrians' and the ancient Assyrians of Nineveh"..."in short, the name [Assyrian] is now inseparable from a whole bogus ethnology"
p366

Arther J.Maclean. Head of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Assyrian Mission from 1886 to 1891
"Why should we invent a name when we have such a very convenient one, used for centuries, at our hand?"..... "should have a fit enthusiasm of Old Assyria"..... "is it common sense to cast aside the name used by the people themselves [Suraye/Suryoye] and invent another [Assyrian] for them of very doubtful applicability?"

S.Zubaida, "Contested Nations: Iraq and the Assyrians"
"National myth and history were created for the Assyrians by European missionaries and archaeologists."..."This appellation 'Assyrian' was eagerly taken up as a national designation with an ancient history and glorious romantic associations, the stuff of nationalist mythology"
p372

Bulent Ozdemir, "Assyrian Identity and the Great War - Nestorian, Chaldean and Syrian Christians in the 20th Century"
"Nineteenth-century Protestant missionaries applied the term 'Assyrian' loosely to various Eastern Christian groups, including (very misleadingly) some Nestorian groups."..... "Modern Eastern Christian nationalists (in Sweden, Germany and elsewhere) use the term 'Assyrian' to describe a national ethnic group that they have constructed for political purposes. In Turkish and Arabic the term 'Suryani' was and is used to mean the Syrian Christians, but sometimes is applied to the Nestorians as well."
p1
Sr 76 (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I do realize this will irritate some of you, but it is what it is, you can't change history.
-Please don't try to contradict me with quotes from some medieval Syriac document that you have chosen to interpret as "proof" of a continued Assyrian identity through the ages.
-If you are going to quote a current academic do not cherry-pick, i will know, chances are I have already read it.
-Also don't confuse the above topic of the 19th C A.D adoption of the name Assyrian with the topic of any academic that claims the ancient-Assyrians were not exterminated after the collapse of the empire in 615.B.C. They are 2 completely different issues.
-nineteenth century archaeologist are not valid sources of information when dealing with their conclusions, archaeology of the near east and Syriac Studies were 2 sciences in their infancy at the time, they were prone to make mistakes. e.g. Layard, Wigram etc...so don't wast my time with that argument.

remember this is not a HISTORY DEBATE open to your interpretation, we are providing sourcing for the page. Sr 76 (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This is getting ridicoulus, Sr76. What's up this the "I do realize this will irritate some of you, but it is what it is, you can't change history."? Do you seriously believe that these selective quotes (among them POV; Joseph, Brock, Özdemir), most of them saying nothing special, would change history? Oh sorry, this wasn't a history debate. Knock it off, you're clearly here on Wikipedia for one reason. The Assyrian identity was there before Layard and Wigram, why not take a look at Parpola's studies on Assyrian identity? To bad you consider of the greatest Assyriologist all nonsense. It's enough to see what Michael The Great and other Assyrians wrote in early days to see that this identity was there. Even the name Suraye originally means Assyrians, Assuraye, and you know that. The fact that you are trying to make the Assyrian term to a geographical term only is again ridiculous, your views are biased and you only have goal with you editing. Let's start contributing. Further, I suggest you read a bit about modern nationalism and its history. Shmayo (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of your views are the ones presented by the controversial Aramean Democratic Organisation, like the one with western missionaries, which is also brought up by the fanatic Gabriel Sengo on his website. All this again showing your true agenda. Shmayo (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

About the etymology of Suraye/Suryoye, which Assyrians always have used to describe themselves: About the conncetion to ancient Assyrians: Other people, pre-Layard, mentioning Assyrians (outside of geographical Assyria): Assyrians, pre-Layard, talking about their Assyrian ancestors: Shmayo (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

References

You get your sources from pro aramean sites Sr 76 this can not be taken as sources, again you show your anti-assyrian propaganda! that's why you are deleting Parpola and other reliable sources in here --129.16.211.92 (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no aramean identity only aramaic speakers:

Source: The Hidden Pearl, Dr Sebastian Brock, volume 1 page 8:

"From around 600 BC and forward, available sources do not have enough information to provide us in a satisfactory way to follow an uninterrupted aramaen ethnic identity through the following centuries, therefore it is aramaic language and those who speak it, which is the thread that can be followed through the centuries to date. Although the term aramean originally aimed at an ethnic group it lost it's meaning and came to mean "a person who speaks aramaic". That is why during the Achaemenid Empire, the members of the aramaic-speaking Jewish community in southern Egypt sometimes referred as arameans, when they really mean "aramaic-speaking" --129.16.211.92 (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You wrote "Today's Assyrian identity traces its origins to the "Archbishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission" in the 19th century AD, where politicians and church leaders alike attempted to avoid using the term 'Nestorians' by using the term 'Assyrian Christians'"

Well this source contradict your whole theory about the Assyrian identity:

Source: H. Chick: A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia. London 1939, S. 100.

During the 16th century AD, according to the "Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia", Pope Paul V shall, in a letter to the Persian Shah Abbas I (1571-1629) of 3 November 1612 mention that the Jacobites endorsed an "Assyrian" identity.

"Those in particular who are called Assyrians or Jacobites and inhabit Isfahan will be compelled to sell their very children in order to pay the heavy tax you have imposed on them, unless You take pity on their misfortune." --129.16.211.92 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Source: "Edessa: The Blessed City", JB Segal

"Although the Assyrian empire had fell, the Assyrians retained the Assyrian culture alive. In his book "Edessa: The Blessed City" JB Segal confirms just that. Before Abgar Dynasty in Urhoy received Christianity, Urhoy was a city of Assyrian gods Nabu, Sin, Shamash, Ashur, Bel and Ishtar of Nineveh. Within the Abgar dynasty, there were kings named Mannu, the Akkadian name that was found in the Assyrian inscriptions from the assyrian city of Tushan(southeastern Turkey). This demonstrates that the people of Urhoy and in northern Mesopotamia retained its Assyrian identity and culture long after the Assyrian empire ceased to exist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.211.92 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Source: Armenian Books V and VI from 420 AD. Todd B. Krause, John A.C. Greppin, and Jonathan Slocum

"..having devoted themselves to a great examination of experiment and investigation, and having endured great labors, they then made an announcement of their own searching to the king of the Armenians, whose name was called Vramshapuh. Then the king told them about a certain man called Daniel by name, an Assyrian bishop of noble origin, who had elsewhere devised letters of the alphabet for the Armenian language. And when this was related to them by the king about the writing from Daniel, they prompted the king to take care according to their needs. And by decree he sent someone, Vahrich by name, to an elderly man whose name they called Habel, who was an acquaintance of the Assyrian bishop Daniel."

Source: William G. Young, "Patriarch, Shah and Caliph", Christian Study Center, Rawalpindi, Pakistan 1974, p.152

Thimithy I (770-823), patriarch of the Church of the East in a letter to the monks of Mar Marun declares that Babylonia, Persia and Assyria, all the countries of the East, such as India and China were under his jurisdiction.

Source: Horatio Southgate, "Narrative of a Visit to the Syrian Church", 1844 p. 80

"I began to make inquiries for the Syrians. The people informed me that there were about one hundred families of them in the town of Kharpout, and a village inhabited by them on the plain. I observed that the Armenians did not know them under the name which I used, Syriani; but called them Assouri, which struck me the more at the moment from its resemblance to our English name Assyrians, from whom they claim their origin, being sons, as they say, of Assour who 'out of the land of Shinar went forth, and build Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resin between Nineveh and Calah."

The identity was still known but Assyrians were called Syrians afterwards, this is from 12 century from Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Michael the great (1126-99)

Source: History of Mikhael The Great Chabot Edition p. 748, 750

"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. ... Assyrians, who were called "Syrians" by the Greeks, were also the same Assyrians, I mean "Assyrians" from "Assure" who built the city of Nineveh."

Source: A Biblical and Theological Dictionary: Explanatory of the History Richard Watson S. 111

"And that the Assyrians were also called Syrians by the Greeks"

Source: John Gill A Collection of Sermons and Tracts, vol. 3, pp. 487

Historian Herodotos 400 BC: "This, people, whom the Greeks call Syrians, are called Assyrians by the barbarians."

Historian Justinus 300 AD: "The Assyrians, who were afterwards called Syrians, held their empire thirteen hundred years" --129.16.211.92 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Source: The Origins of Syrian Nationhood: Histories, Pioneers and Identity Adel Beshara

Source: Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World Nathanael J. Andrade

Historian Strabo 100 BC: "When those who have written histories about the Syrian empire say that the Medes were overthrown by the Persians and the Syrians by the Medes, they mean by the Syrian no other people than those who built the royal palaces in Babylon and Ninus; and of these Syrians, Ninus was the man who founded Ninus, in Aturia" --129.16.211.92 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Who are you Sr 76 to say what kind of sources people should use in here? you act like a dictator! you don't consider other sources then yours to be reliable because they don't match your propaganda in here, you should be warned you can't behave like this

Like Shmayo said this is getting ridicoulus it obvious that you are only here for one reason, you haven't contributed anything in here just deleted reliable sources. The sources of Shmayo alone contradicts everything you wrote in your intro --Suryoye85 (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sr76, this is utterly ridiculous. You cannot simply take sources that are clearly POV -- from an "Aramean" webiste -- and go about deleting sources such as Parpola. You CANNOT simply call a source that you disagree with "POV" and remove it. Your proposal was not neutral, and you do not seem to want to contribute to the page, but rather delete sourced, reputable scholars. As others have pointed out, there are more than enough sources, a miniscule amount, of which, were sourced above.Penguins53 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

This is remarkable, not one mention of "the Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission to the Assyrians" in any of these references that you have all sited. Let alone a reference refuting that it created TODAY'S Assyrian identity.
@129.16.211.92 and @Penguins53 I was incorrectly accused by @Shmayo of getting my views from pro-Aramean sites, not my sources. My sources don't match those used in the article @Shmayo mentioned anyway. Its the first I have heard of Gabriel Sengo, i will look him up. Thank you.
@129.16.211.92 thank for making it clear that it is your intention of having an "editing war". Because I have no intention of participating.
Dear Wiki-Admins @Fut.Perf.:, please pay close attention to the Dr. Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. retired from the Department of Philosophy, Los Angeles Valley College: http://www.friesian.com/notes/note-n.htm#syrian Where he writes:
"The protest against my little webpage, however, turned out to be all too common a phenomenon in the lives of scholars far more serious and better informed than me about the modern Aramaic communities -- if they did not toe the nationalistic party line. Even scholars who were Assyrians themselves have come in for protests and threats. As it happened, the Chair of the History Department at my own College, at the time of the protest against me, was of Assyrian origin herself; but she told me, "Those people are so irrational," that she had had nothing to do with them in years. Most telling in this respect is the work of John Joseph, already in 1999 an Emeritus professor from Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania. Joseph's book, The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East, Encounters with Western Christian missions, archaeologists, and colonial powers [Brill, Leiden, Boston, Köln, 2000], is the most sensible general treatment of modern Assyrian history and ideology, and it apparently has earned him considerable vilification from the nationalists."....... "My perplexity was interpreted by some Assyrians, who in the Spring of 2001 happened to find the webpage, as an attack on the Assyrians (ancient and modern). My observations were hotly disputed and regarded as "anti-Assyrian" by many Assyrians. A protest was organized against me, and the President of my College was flooded with protesting e-mails, including one from someone who had been one of my own students, actually calling for my dismissal. People also seemed to have taken the idea, or perhaps been told, that I thought they should not call themselves "Assyrians." I never thought so or said so.".
Sr 76 (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I know you're probably new here, but take a look the archives here. John Joseph is one of the most debated. Most people agree that he is biased and an Arameanist. To raise an example; he is probably the only one arguing for that Assyria and Syria are not synonyms, when there is plenty of work on this subject (see above). Even pro-Aramean TV "experts" as Assad Assad actually admitted that these two terms are synonyms, but John Joseph still refuses to accept this. I don't know why you would think that an Arameanist would be a reliable source. Shmayo (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not surprised that the consensus about John Joseph on Wikipedia and in Assyrian circles, is the way it is. However in the academic world his views about the modern-Assyrians are highly regarded. John Joseph is a modern-Assyrian from the Church of the East, and still calls himself an Assyrian. If anything thing, this is far from bias, it shows great character. You know, you don't need to label people (Arameanist), even if they hold a particular historical view. It may surprise you to know that I myself am not an Aramean.

Sr 76 (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well if you would read it you probably would understand why. I doubt that his views are "highly regarded". He is biased, don't know how you consider that "character". Joseph is pro-Aramean, a quick read on his "Assyria and Syria: Synonyms?" tells he is desperately trying to prove obvious things wrong. Shmayo (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have read it a number of times. Thank you for your opinion. Sr 76 (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Sr 76's sources appear in non-RS websites doesn't discredit them. For the most part I agree with Sr 76's proposal, although I suggest using a less aggressive tone, for example instead of "Assyrian identity traces its origins to..." we can use something like "modern usage of the term Assyrian traces its origins to...", etc.

On the other hand nearly all of 129.16.211.92's arguments are polemical (i.e. not RS) interpretations of primary and secondary sources.--Kathovo talk 16:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The suggested changes sound fair enough. I also agree with your conclusion about @129.16.211.92 references, which is why I chose to ignore them, especially since they did not deal with the original subject matter.

Sr 76 (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources presented above by me shows us an Assyrian identity pre-Layard/Wigram. You keep talking about "today's" identity without defining what you mean by that. Don't know if you have seen this map by John Speed from 1626 describing Assyrians as one of the peoples in the Ottoman empire. This, and all above, and you're still stuck with the theory about western missionaries. Let's suppose it was true, then what about the non-Nestorians? How come they got an Assyrian identity today? Shmayo (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

All of you: you still need to radically change your entire approach to this page. You are again debating what is the "truth" of the matter, and what your own opinions and arguments are about that. Stop doing that. What you need to discuss is what modern reliable sources say. For this purpose: (a) Cite modern, secondary sources. (b) Describe exactly which points each source supports. (c) Describe exactly and explicitly in what way each of these points is or isn't relevant for the article, and what question each statement is supposed to be an answer to. (For example, I sincerely hope you are all aware that the statement "Michael the Great thought that there was a link between ancient Assyrians and his contemporaries", no matter how well sourced, could never have any relevance to a modern discussion of whether there actually was such an historical link – a 12th-century writer, lacking the tools of modern scholarship, simply had no way he could possibly know what had happened millennia before his own time. And he was writing at a time where it was a common learned game to simply make up such links – Christian writers would commonly call Russians "Scythians", Turks "Persians", Albanians "Macedonians" and so on, with absolutely no sense of any historical realities behind these equations. Just a hint.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Shmayo I already know the map from John Speed, but this is far away from being an evidence that the Suryoye/Suraye called themselves Assyrians or considered the ancient Assyrians as their ancestors. The "Deutschen" don't call themselves Germans (Germanen) or Alemanes (Alemannen) in their native tongue and it's not the first time that the word Suryoye/Suraye was mistranslated into "Assyrian" by outsiders:missionaries and colonists. Do you have quotes or chronicles from Nestorian Christians BEFORE the 19th century and in their OWN words, which shows an ethnic Assyrian continuity? The Syriac-Orthodox Church has quotes and chronicles which goes hundreds of years back, where they equate Suryoyo with Oromoyo in their OWN words. Interestingly, the Arameans from Maalula who are either Christian Melkites or Muslims call their Aramaic language/dialect also "Siryon" or "Loghtha Siryanoytha(Aramoytha)", which is a result of Greek-Christian influence on the Arameans. The word Suryoyo, which literally means Syrian in English is rather a religious term similar to Maronites, Catholics or Melkites. Nevertheless words can change their meanings in course of history. Even if the word Suryoyo derives from Assyrian ot doesn't change the fact that the Arameans where also known by this name. --Suryoyo124 (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Examples like this before the Aramean movement began and in their own words, which was removed from the "Assyrian people" page: Mar Jacob of Edessa, died in 708 A.D., says in one of his homilies:"Ho hokuth hnan Oromoye awkith Suryoye", which means "It in the same way also we the Arameans, that is to say the Syrians".--Suryoyo124 (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Fut.Perf. @Shmayo I am under no obligation to explain my views, since they are not my views. I'm not here to debate you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr 76 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Sr 76 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Shmayo: Stop trolling through my contribution log and reverting my edits. I should not have to spend 2 hours preparing an edit with an image to explain this nonsense to you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_the_Syrian

This quote supposedly by Michael the Great (Michael the Syrian) is falsified by Addai Scher in an article titled Hestorie De La Chaldee Et De "Assyrie". It is NOT a Michael the Syrian quote. Addai Scher was an Assyrian bishop that died in 1915. In other words, you Assyrians have been peddling Scher's lies among yourselves for over 100 years. He changed the words of Michael the Syrian to aid Assyrianism, Scher's quote read like this (from the Wikipeadia-page): "Assyrians, who were called "Syrians" by the Greeks, were also the same Assyrians, I mean "Assyrians" from "Assure" who built the city of Nineveh."

Even the perspective was misrepresented by Addai Scher, since Michael actually was quoting the ancient historian Josephus within that sentance. Scher made no mention of this to mislead his readers.

This is an image of the actual Cabbot transcript of Micheal the Great's Chronicals. page 748:

File:Michael The Syrian quoting Joseaphus Page 748.jpg

Page 748 Chabott's Syriac version of Michael the Syrian

My English translation of the Syriac, Michael the Great's:
"Josephus, the Hebrew writer says things that are in agreement with those Eusebius, as he called Asur "Ashur" in Greek: "Ashur, who from the Assyrians built Nineveh "; and he also called Chaldeans those descending Assyrians and Arameans that are the Syrians."

I will make the assumption you don't read Syriac. So hear is Cabotts french vol III page 443:
"Josèphe, le chroniqueur hébreu, dit des choses qui sont d'accord avec celles d'Eusèbe, car il appelle Asûr « Assour », en langue grecque : « Assour, de qui proviennent les Assyriens, bâtit Ninive »; et il appelle aussi Chaldéens ceux de qui descendent les Assyriens et les Araméens qui sont les Syriens."

The irony is on that same page (748) on no less than three places Michael explains the Arameans are Syrians, including the actual title of the page, which reads as follows:
"WITH GOD'S HELP US IN REMEMBRANCE OF EMPIRES THAT WERE MADE IN ANCIENT TIMES THROUGH OUR RACE ARAMEAN, THAT IS TO SAY THE DESCENDANTS OF ARAM, [WHO] WERE CALLED SYRIA OR SYRIAN PEOPLE. WE HAVE RAISED WITH CARE, OF WRITTEN AUTHORIZED THE EVIDENCE THAT RELATE TO THEIR EMPIRES."
Sr 76 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sr 76: you, too, need to stop debating what you think Michael is actually saying, and start what, if anything, it is that modern scholars think Michael's relevance for the history of Syriac/Assyrian identity is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@129.16.211.99 Sebastian Brock is talking about the disappearance of a SPECIFIC ethnic Aramean race, which is true, but he didn't say that the mixed race descendants from the Arameans with other nations didn't call or consider themselves as Arameans. How many nations on this earth are actually of pure race? The same thing happened, when the Arab Muslims invaded the Levant, Mesopotamia and North Africa and intermingled with the local nations, e.g. Berbers, Jews, Arameans, Black people, Copts etc.. After several hundreds of years the Arabs were no longer able to distinguish between pure Arabs and mixed race Arabs. However, their descendants are linguistic and cultural Arabs or do modern Egyptians, Syrians, Tunisians,... don't consider themselves as ethnic Arabs? Are the modern Turks a specific ethnic race? An ethnicity is not only based on genes, if this is that what you mean! You're definitely not simply linguistic Aramaeanized Assyrians, because of the physical presence of the Arameans in Mesopotamia and thus in Assyria. History repeats.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Same warning to you: Stop debating your own opinions of ethnic identities. I don't get it. What's so freaking difficult about simply not doing that? Everybody here behaves as if there was nothing anybody could do apart from it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Suryoyo124, I don't think you understood what the discussion here was about. Sr76, I don't know why you brought that up here. I will answer you on that talk page. Shmayo (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

S 76 and Kathovo specially S 76 why are you ignoring sources from 129.16.211.92? he used reliable sources and they were not interpretations at all probably only 1-2 of them but the rest were not interpretations, real sources taken from scholars --Suryoye85 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

However Shmayos sources contradicted everything you wrote Sr 76 --Suryoye85 (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to learn to be more specific about saying what exactly you think a specific source does support or doesn't support. It's not a matter of a wholesale "either-or", or of "all the sources supporting everything" or "contradicting everything" somebody says. Please discuss specific points and how specific positions about them in the literature ought to be reflected in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Michael the Syrian (Michael the Great)

Butts explaining that Michael considered the term Authoroye (Assyrians) as a reference to the people from the city of Mosul and potentially close surrounding areas.

A.M. Butts, Lector of Semitics in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Yale University: "Assyrian Christians"
page 2-3
"With Athor [Assyria] referring to the city of Mosul, the gentilic adjective Athoraya [Assyrian] was, then, used as a designation for one from the city of Mosul. It is probably in this sense that the Syriac Orthodox patriarch and historian Michael the Great (d. 1199) called Imad al-Din Zangi, who was the atabeg (governor) of Mosul, an 'Assyrian (Athoraya) pig' in his Chronicle (Chabot 1899-1910: 3.261 [French translation]; 4.630.2.24 [Syriac text]). This meaning continued to be used in Classical Syriac at least until the turn of the 20th century."

Dorothea Weltecke
Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East
Page: 119
Things become less clear when we try to decide his position concerning secular and ethnic identity. It is obvious that for Michael the ancient Near East had a very special importance. The ancient Near East recurred in the Chronicle. In the heading of his Appendix II Michael states: 'With the help of God we write down the memory of the kingdoms which belong in the past to our Aramean people, that is, sons of Aram, who are called Suryoye [Syriacs], this people from Syria'......
This statement seems to be straightforward enough. But compared to other phrases, some contradictions arise. Following the work by Flavius Josephus (37-after 100 CE) through intermediaries, Michael explains the change of the name of ancient Near Eastern people end empires through the changes by the Greeks 'The Arameans were called Syrians by the Greeks and Oturoye were called Assyrians.' This statement is in accordance with the sentence just quoted."

While the ancestry of the Syriacs is exlusively applied by Michael to just the Arameans, and makes several references to the Syriacs being Arameans. On ONE occasion suggests the Assyrians are also of the Syriacs [not the nonsense falsified-quote that @Shmayo and @129.16.211.92 used above, that they got from Assyrian Bishop Addai Scher]. Weltecke suggest this is done because Michael considers the Oturoye (Assyrians, Syriacs from the Mosul region) to be descended from the Arameans also.

Dorothea Weltecke
Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East
Page: 120
"But when he named those decendants of Shem who possess a script he says the following: 'These are the names of the people who have script among the descendants of Shem: Chaldeans, Oturoye [Assyrians], who are the Suryoye [Syriacs], Hebrew, Persians, Medes, Arabs'. A few pages before he said: 'These are the descendants pf Shem, Oturoye [Assyrians], Chaldeans, Lydians, Oromoye [Arameans], that is , Suryoye [Syriacs]'. Who are the Suryoye [Syriacs] to Michael: Assyrians or Arameans? While is painful for outspoken Arameans to be identified with the Assyrians, one has to bear in mind, that following Jacob of Edessa, Michael also supports the hypothesis that Assyrians are descendants of the Arameans. For Michael, Aramaic is the original language spoken not only in all of the ancient Near Eastern empires but by mankind in general, before the confusion of the languages after the building of the Tower of Babel took place. While Michael was not the first to hold this opinion, his position will be underlined here to highlight the difference between his and modern viewpoints of Assyrians and Arameans." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr 76 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this belongs more to Michael the Syrian's article. It can also be used to deconstruct claims of continuity based on Michael the Syrian's alleged statements in the Assyrian continuity article.--Kathovo talk 10:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I remember seeing it on the Assyrian People page also, someone must have deleted it.Sr 76 (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I made a mistake in the first Weltecke quote. I just corrected it.Sr 76 (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: Added English appellations in [], quotes for clarification.Sr 76 (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Identification of modern-Assyrian Sources on the page

Initial Identification of sources on the "Assyrian People" page that are specifically written by modern-Assyrians:

ref 1 - Modern Aramaic Dictionary & Phrasebook: Nicholas Awde, Nineb Limassu, Nicholas Al-Jeloo.

ref 11 - http://www.aina.org/brief.html

ref 47 - Certrez, Donabed, and Makko (2012). The Assyrian Heritage: Threads of Continuity and Influence. Uppsala University. pp. 258–259.

ref 52 - Aboona, Hirmis (2008)

ref 56 - George V. Yana (Bebla), "Myth vs. Reality," JAA Studies, Vol. XIV, No. 1, 2000 p. 80

ref 57 - Aboona, H (2008). Assyrians, Kurds, and Ottomans: intercommunal relations on the periphery of the Ottoman Empire

ref 60 - Dr. Joel J. Elias, Emeritus, University of California, The Genetics of Modern Assyrians and their Relationship to Other People of the Middle East Sr 76 (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Needless to say, these are being marked for removal Sr 76 (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think being written by modern Assyrians qualifies them automatically for deletion. I see no problem in keeping Aboona and Certez et al, keeping WP:UNDUE in mind. However...

ref 1 is only authoritative in linguistic matters, it can be removed.

AINA should go.

ref 56 is written and self-published by a layman, it should go.

ref 60 is authored by a university lecturer in the field of anatomy, he has no authority in genetics.--Kathovo talk 09:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why can't we use sources written by Assyrian scholars or modern Assyrians? if they use reference that are reliable then it should not be any problem? --Suryoye85 (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No, of course, the fact that an author is an Assyrian himself certainly doesn't disqualify them – no more so than the fact that somebody is an "Aramaeanist" would disqualify them. However, any source written from an identifiable POV perspective needs to be questioned for its reliability and its POV perspective needs to be contextualized properly when using it for the article: to what extent is it part of a responsible academic discourse rather than mere popular opinion piece, and to what extent does it represent mainstream academic consensus rather than the views of an academic niche? Many of the publications currently used are certainly of debatable quality. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies I should have been more clear. I don't have a problem with Assyrian sources, as opposed to party driven sources. My first concern is some sources used on this page aren't even qualified academics (which doesn't necessarily make them incorrect). While others removed from general academic consensus but made out as if it is a normal view. e.g the http://www.aina.org/brief.html (ref 11), clearly fits this description, where as http://www.aina.org/articles/chicago.pdf (ref 104) from the same website at first glance seems appropriate in the way that it is use. Sr 76 (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the "Ancient history" and "After the fall of Nineveh" sections

Fut.Perf. already removed the Assyrian continuity, which was a tendentious section in favor of Assyrianism and the same applies for the the other two sections and the introduction text.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Suryoyo124, thank you for your edits. I just have a request: There was a sentence or two in there about the persecutions of a Persian king against our people and how 153,000 were massacred -- can this line be added again? It just happened to be in that section but did not have to do with Assyrianism. Penguins53 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

@Suryoyo124: I tend to agree, I covered some of this in the section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Georges_Roux_-_reference_deliberately_falsified

where i also asked it should be deleted. @Shmayo suggested a rewrite. So I put together a draft rewrite of the section 'after the fall', but the entire section was littered with strange references that were just randomly strung together.

@Penguin53: is it possible to get a quote from a source in relation to the 150,000 killed?

Sr 76 (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sr76, here it is: Under the nineteen year reign of Yazdegerd II, over 153,000 Assyrians were executed in Kirkuk, then part of Persia. I don't remember the exact quote, but this is not the only source to mention it. This could be placed under the "persecution" section in "demographics." Penguins53 (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

It's also here: http://english.irib.ir/thisday/item/190292-this-day-in-history-30-3-1393, https://books.google.com/books?id=hrlgAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=Kirkuk+153,000+Assyrian&source=bl&ots=VGHcfPYqxk&sig=oGlpdfja-lGaXiQxhTrNEkcep8A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tQjsVO_eEceZNsDFgpAM&ved=0CEIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Kirkuk%20153%2C000%20Assyrian&f=false, http://www.aramnahrin.org/English/ChristiansOfIraq.htm, http://www.aina.org/martyr.html Penguins53 (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

@Penguins53 we cant be expected to work from links like this, since there is nothing to suggest what the exact terminology was in relation to the occurrence of this event in history. It could be just another case of Assyrian circular logic, where every thing is labeled Assyrian and therefore 153,000 Assyrians were killed.

If the source of the event was a Persian document, it may very well have been a reference to Assyrian nomenclature or a derivative there-of, but if it was Syriac/Roman/Greek more than likely, referred to the Syriacs.

As you can imagine given the quality of sourcing found on this page, one can only expect another misnomer. So please find a credible source.

Sr 76 (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sr76, I do know that it was quoted in the book "The Assyrian Heritage," (http://www.amazon.com/Assyrian-Heritage-Threads-Continuity-Influence/dp/9155483038), which is published by an academic press in Sweden of Uppsalla University. The page number was 258-259 and the citation is above. Penguins53 (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

@Penguins53 I'm not sure about this. Is this part of the "Ledgend of Mar Qardagh", 4th C or 5th C, Nestorian mythology that relates ancient characters (such the ancient Assyrian King Sencharib) and Christian Bishops to stories in the Old Testament like Jonah and the whale? Sr 76 (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sr76: Hm, I don't have the book with me at the moment, but I honestly do not recall it being a part of that. It was, I believe, more-so from the reports/journal of a C.o.E. priest in the Persian empire reporting on what was going on. Penguins53 (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

EDIT: It's from one of Paul Bedjan's (a 19th century Chaldean priest) books

I don't have either of those text in my collection so I can't look it up for you. If it's a 19thC priest that wrote about 4thC event, then in that case I would really suggest an academic perspective on the topic.Sr 76 (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sr76, I will take a look into this Penguins53 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

Coakley misrepresented

Lie...lies....and more lies....
This is probably the worst I have seen so far. There is barely a single valid source on this entire "Assyrian People" page.

In the "Identity" section of the paragraph appears:
"Neo-Aramaic exhibits remarkably conservative features compared with Imperial Aramaic, and the earliest European visitors to northern Mesopotamia in modern times encountered a people called "Assyrians", "Assouri" and "Ashuriyun", and people with ancient Assyrian names such as Sargon, Sennacherib, Ashur and Semiramis."[80][81]
Siting Coakley[80] and Coogan[81]

What Coakley acually wrote:
The Church of the East and the Church of England: A History of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Assyrian Mission
J. F. Coakley
p366
"I refer here to the link created between the modern 'Assyrians' and the ancient Assyrians of Nineveh know to readers of the Old Testament. The link has proved irresistible to the imagination. In modern times, Syrian children have been named 'Sargon', 'Nebuchadnezzar'. etc.; the winged lions of Nineveh have appeared as national symbols; and, in short, the name is now inseprable from a whole bogus ethnology."

In no way can anyone have confused Coakley's intentions here, where he clearly referes to modern-Assyrian identity as "created" and "bogus", AFTER the protestant missions. Where he then says modern-Assyrians started naming their children after ancient-Assyrian kings...Sargon etc...The quote on the Assyrian People page sugests that the names "Sargon, Sennacherib, Ashur and Semiramis" were names discovered amoung the Assyrian people when Europeans first came to northern Mesopotamia. The exact OPOSITE of what Coakley was suggesting.

Sr 76 (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Except that other sources accept that such names DID exist prior to the late 19th century. And most sources accept Syrian is synonymous with Assyrian, and means one and the same thing when applied to northern Mesopotamia, and did so even during the height of the Assyrian Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Coogan false reference

In the same section as above "Coakley misrepresented". Assyrian People page "Identity" section, the paragraph appears:
"Neo-Aramaic exhibits remarkably conservative features compared with Imperial Aramaic, and the earliest European visitors to northern Mesopotamia in modern times encountered a people called "Assyrians", "Assouri" and "Ashuriyun", and people with ancient Assyrian names such as Sargon, Sennacherib, Ashur and Semiramis."[80][81]
Siting Coakley[80] and Coogan[81]

And yet, in the Coogan text......
The Oxford History of the Biblical World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)
Michael D. Coogan, ed
p279
Nothing resembles this on page 279 and was unable to find it in the remainder of the book.
Sr 76 (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"Genetics" Section Removal

@Suryoyo124: Not all of the genetics section had to be removed. There are links and statistics that do not support Assyrian continuity but just seem to state that Assyrians are a distint ethnic group, not Arab or Persian or Turkish. For example, this was removed: "Late 20th century DNA analysis conducted by Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza, "shows that Assyrians have a distinct genetic profile that distinguishes their population from any other population." Cavalli-Sforza was a highly-respected geneticist. One can simply include this statement but not include the other statement that suggests continuity, but rather that we are a separate non-Arab, non-Turkish, non-Persian ethnic group in the Middle east.

The same can be said about this statement: it simply provides support to the argument of our people as an ethnic group, and not continuity:

"Genetic analysis of the Assyrians of Persia demonstrated that they were "closed" with little "intermixture" with the Muslim Persian population and that an individual Assyrian's genetic makeup is relatively close to that of the Assyrian population as a whole. This statement also does not support continuity:

"In a 2006 study of the Y chromosome DNA of six regional Armenian populations, including, for comparison, Assyrians and Syrians, researchers found that, "the Semitic populations (Assyrians and Syrians) are very distinct from each other according to both [comparative] axes. This difference supported also by other methods of comparison points out the weak genetic affinity between the two populations with different historical destinies."

Same with this:

"A 2008 study on the genetics of "old ethnic groups in Mesopotamia," including 340 subjects from seven ethnic communities ("Assyrian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Armenian, Turkmen, the Arab peoples in Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait") found that Assyrians were homogeneous with respect to all other ethnic groups sampled in the study, regardless of religious affiliation"

And this:

"In a 2011 study focusing on the genetics of Marsh Arabs of Iraq, researchers identified Y chromosome haplotypes shared by Marsh Arabs, Iraqis, and Assyrians, "supporting a common local background."

"The relationship probability was lowest between Assyrians and other communities. Endogamy was found to be high for this population through determination of the heterogeneity coefficient (+0,6867), Our study supports earlier findings indicating the relatively closed nature of the Assyrian community as a whole, which as a result of their religious and cultural traditions, have had little intermixture with other populations."

We don't need to remove these statements that talk about endogamy and such. These statements don't have anything to do with continuity. Basically, the section should still be included with the removal of the Assyrian news reporter comment and statements saying they may be "descendants of their namesakes." Penguins53 (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

@Penguins53 Thank you for your suggestion and your cooperation.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Suryoyo124: Thank you. Penguins53 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

Assyrian vs. Syrian naming controversy section

Should this section be removed entirely from this article? If we want to keep this section, it will definitely need a rewrite, so that it fits to both modern Assyrians and Arameans from a neutral point of view without going further into detail. The Assyrian continuity article already covers most of the points mentioned here and expresses the views of the Assyrian faction, why it should be Syrian = Assyrian (ethnicity) and not Syrian = Aramean (ethnicity).--Suryoyo124 (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Suryoyo124: I am in the process of rewriting this section. I just collecting some more sources. Sr 76 (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Its already mentioned in this section, it was applied to both Assyria and Aramea:

"As early as the 8th century BC Luwian and Cilician subject rulers referred to their Assyrian overlords as Syrian, a western Indo-European bastardisation of the true term Assyrian. This corruption of the name took hold in the Hellenic lands to the west of the old Assyrian Empire, thus during Greek Seleucid rule from 323 BC the name Assyria was altered to Syria, and this term was also applied to Aramea to the west which had been an Assyrian colony. When the Seleucids lost control of Assyria to the Parthians they retained the corrupted term (Syria), applying it to ancient Aramea"

The Çineköy inscription shows etymology between Syria and Assyria --SuryoyeGBG (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Suryoyo124 Is correct to question this section, since It does reflect on a singular ideal linking Assyrians to today's Syriacs (I don't think deleting it is the correct was to go about it). As is the case with a majority of this page, for example, "Aramea was an Assyrian colony"....nonsense. And since there is evidence of etymology between Syria and Assyria, they why is there no reference to the time Syrians actually started calling themselves Syrians. Its just a big yawning gap, designed to lead the reader to a directed assumption, that the Syrians are Assyrians. This is certainly not the extent of the "Assyrian v Syrian naming controversy" things are left out deliberately.Sr 76 (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody actually called themselves Syrians which is why there is a big yawning gap. The term very clearly meant Assyrian for very many centuries. After the Seleucid period this term which was historically synonymous with Assyrian was misapplied to The Levant (Aramea, Eber Nari, Phoenicia). So in essence Syria meant one and the same thing as Assyria during the Assyrian, Achaemenid and Neo Babylonian Empires. Out of that context it actually has no meaning, quite clearly.

Assyrian population estimates

Can we please get some new and reliable stats for the Assyrian population in countries. The current sources listed for

-United States, at 400,000 - Jordan 100,000-150,000 -Germany 100,000 - Netherlands 20,000 - Switzerland 10,000 - Italy 3,000

are all gross overestimates. For instance, the source from AINA "CNN underestimates Assyrian population" is completely ridiculous and inaccurate. Take Italy as an example: there are only two Chaldean Catholic monasteries in the country and there are most likely under a hundred individuals that identify as A/C/S/A. The AINA source should be removed and more accurate ones used. Same thing with Netherlands: I've spoken to people from there who say there is a small, unorganized community that makes up probably no more than a thousand or so people. Penguins53 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

Question

I know this page focuses on modern Mesopotamian Eastern Aramaic (See Intro) speaking Suraye/Suryoye or known as Assyrians, Arameans and Chaldeans, but why are some people trying to put or link even Maronites (See Identity section) and Levant Arameans from Maalula to this page as well? They have partially a different storyline in terms of history, language/dialect and religion again. A serious name or ethnicity conflict can be only found among the Syrian Christians from Mesopotamia, excluding other Syriac Christians from the Middle East. This page would be getting even more confusing than it already is. I respect to use the Assyrian name in a neutral way on this page and some other related Mesopotamian Suraye/Suryoye topics as long as it makes sense, but to use the name for Maronites or Levant Arameans is dubious and misleading. --Suryoyo124 (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Suryoyo124:@Fut.Perf.: This page only focuses on Mesopotamia simply because it's the "Assyrian People" page. When the "Assyrian People" page, absorbed the "Syriac People", The "Aramean-Syriac People" page. What changes were made to accommodate the differing lines of history? NONE! The Syriacs/Chaldeans/Arameans were simply clumped into the same content of the Assyrians because nothing else matters. For example till this day Penguin53 continually deletes items from "Aramean" page, because he claims that page refers to only the ancient Arameans and people need to look at the "Assyrian People" page for information about the Arameans. Well then, where is the Aramean content of the "Assyrian People" page? The "Naming Contreversy" section? Doesn't that suggest that the Arameans are really Assyrians, and they just don't know any better....Removing the other pages has created a great anomaly in the way Wikipedia works. What you mentioned is just another example. The really sad thing is so far as history is concerned as we can see from the Assyrian People Talk page the Assyrian claims barely have a leg to stand on.

Sr 76 (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a hard time trying to understand whether you, Sr 76, are considering these as the same ethnic group? What are these "differing lines of history"? Why would you want to restore those forks? I have a Syriac Orthodox background, what does that make me? Aramean or Assyrian? The "Arameans"-article is for the ancient people. For example, why isn't information about the Simele massacre considered to be "Aramean content" by you? Shmayo (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok @Shmayo, just so you understand my point. Show me where on the current "Assyrian People" page, it deals with the Arameans that lived outside of Mesopotamia or even inside of Mesopotamia after the fall of Nineveh.Sr 76 (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I just asked you why you didn't consider information about the Simele massacre as "Aramean content"? Why isn't that "Aramean content"? What I'm saying is that you're trying to mark some kind of difference between somebody calling himself "Assyrian", "Chaldean", "Syriac" etc. Or am I wrong? Why else would you want to restore those articles? Shmayo (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Shmayo What forks? You are the one who removed the entire "Arameans in Israel" article of which content was definitely not a fork! The people over there are officially recognized as ethnic Aramean by a state (Israel) and neither fit to you Assyrians nor to Maronites. Or do most of you Assyrians and Maronites share the same opinion to be descendants of the Arameans from Aram like they do? I don't think so and I doubt you and the others want to see Israeli Aramean content in the "Assyrians in Israel" article and you don't consider them as your people like we do, because the Israeli Arameans are not from your beloved area, which was once Assyria. They are also members of the World Council of Arameans (Syriacs). The first thing you did, when the Aramean in Israel article was restored, was to remove the Aramean flag. So much for neutrality on your side. Why do we have a specific Druze or Yazidis article then? "I have a Syriac Orthodox background, what does that make me? Aramean or Assyrian?" You can call yourself an Eskimo, if you want to but you don't have the right to force an identity on someone else! The Assyrian nationalism is one of the first Christian political movement originated within the Nestorian Christians and then spilled over to the Syriac-Orthodox Christians to unite all Mesopotamian Suraye/Suryoye from different denominations under one roof with the myth to be descendants from the ancient Assyrians and there are a lot of Suryoye (Arameans) who oppose the Assyrianization of their language and identity. They (Pro-Assyrians) even call our Aramaic dialect/language Assyrian! Imagine an Italian would call Spanish an Italian dialect, because this is what Turoyo and Assyrian-Neo Aramaic really are: languages based on Aramaic, not simple dialects. Most outsiders like Fut.Perf. don't understand that the Syriac Christians (Maronites, Syriac-Orthodox Christians, Nestorians, Melkites,...) were already separated hundreds of years ago and didn't care about ethnicity or political topics and now some of them are trying to unite or re-unite because of similarities in history, religion, origin or language, e .g. the Arameans from Israel and Mesopotamia or they create totally different groups, such as the Assyrians in stark contrast to them (Arameans).

See:Ethnic group--Suryoyo124 (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Time to check the rules again, Suryoyo myakro. This is not a forum for you to spread some rubbish propaganda and calling things myths, no one is taking you serious that way. Stick to Wikipedia related things. Just because you have two articles on German Wikipedia doesn't mean it's right. Shmayo (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about the "Aramean-Syriac people" fork if you were wondering. But then again this is all off-topic. Shmayo (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Maronites are also part of our "modern" people, their are already several articles about our ancient history as phoenicia, assyria, arameans, babylonians etc. We are known as Assyrian people internationally this is the name they use to identify Syriacs from the Levant and Mesopotamia there is no difference between a syriac from Syria and a syriac from Iraq. At the same time our people identify themselves with several names some are even identify themselves as "Christian arabs" does that make them arabs? this part is already in the article in the self-designation section --Suryoye85 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Everybody: again, stop debating your own opinions, start citing sources. Nobody is interested in whether you think Maronites are part of Assyrians, or whatever. The only legitimate topic you are supposed to discuss here is whether reliable, neutral modern sources treat them as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Maronites(Lebanese) are related but they have their own country their own name and they are originated from a different area etc our "Syriac christian" nation in upper Mesopotamia(northern Iraq, eastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, western Iran) includes 3 churches Syriac, Nestorian and Chaldean

I have a question should we include Babylonian/Chaldean ancient history in this article? why I mention this is because "some" modern chaldean advocate this --SuryoyeGBG (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)