Talk:Assyrian people

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Sargon (again)

The ethnogenesis of the present Assyrians took place from about the 7th century BC. Which, of course, gives them a history more "ancient" than found in most other peoples, no quarrel there. Why is this not enough for the chauvinists? Sargon of Akkad lived full 1500 years earlier, and it is patently silly to discuss him here, let alone mention him in the intro. What we have here is a wiki: you can place "links" to other articles, like so: [[Assyrian Empire]] will give you Assyrian Empire, and people can click on the blue text if they are interested in the earlier history of that state. Discussing Sargon, who lived 800 years before the Aramaeans ever entered Assyria, and 1500 years before anybody thought of making Aramaic an "imperial language" is very clearly utterly offtopic to any discussion of the Assyrian people, except in a section titled "romantic nationalism". dab (𒁳) 12:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What in the world is irretating you now? The Assyrians were the children of the Akkadian empire, as proven with the language they spoke. Whats the problem now? Chaldean 01:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

they also were the children of Mitochondrial Eve. Does that inspire you to give a detailed discussion of the Lower Paleolithic in the intro? Sorry, mentioning the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the intro is just about arguable, but the discussing the Akkadian Empire is ludicrous. dab (𒁳) 09:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, please tell me, how is it "off topic"? The Akkadians spoke Akkadian. The ancient Assyrians spoke Akkadian as well, they even used the same names as the Akkadians. How is it off topic to mention that the ancient Assyrians are most likely (we can't be sure after all) the descendants of the Akkadians? EliasAlucard|Talk 22:05 28 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

this is the article on the modern Assyrians. Old Assyrian is a completely different topic. Look, can we be reasonable about this? You can mention Sargon in the History of the Assyrian people, or even link him from the "History" section, but he is really completely out of place in the intro. The Assyrians are descendants of the Akkadians, sure, but why stop there? They are also the descendants of the Sumerians, and of Homo erectus, and whatever else. How is that at all relevant? If you like, we can say under "Identity" that "many modern Assyrians for some reason have a bee in their bonnet about Sargon of Akkad and generally keep harping on the Old Assyrain Empire, which may lead to grotesque revert-wars on Wikipedia. This sort of thing has been described as antiquity frenzy and is observed particularly often in threatened communities with a fraying identity". At least we would then say what this is about: not about Sargon of Akkad at all, but about some childish reflex of nationalism. Oh wait, we already have this, "Many modern Assyrians believe to descend from the inhabitants of the ancient Assyrian Empire that began under Sargon I". Fair enough: you can believe what you like if you makes you happy, really, I am fine with it. If you disagree with what I consider the perfectly obvious scope of this article, I suggest you leave a note at WP:RFC and wait for third opinions. dab User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]] 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

First, the Assyrians were not descendants of the Sumerians, they were a completely different people, both linguistically and ethnically. But the Assyrians did inherit much of their culture, and of course, their writing system. Second, the ethnogenesis of the Assyrians started much earlier than 700 BC, it goes back to the pre-Sharrukin times when we have the first evidence of an "Assyrian" dialect of Akkadian, which the ancient Assyrians themselves called "Ashuri". Other people will say the ethnogenesis of the Assyrians started 6757 years ago, but that's more with respects to the dawn of ("Mesopotamian") civilization, and there's no evidence of an Assyrian identity at that time. Regardless, these modern people are the last remaining true "Mesopotamians" who maintain much of that culture to this day. Furthermore, Dbachmann, your cynical tone voids any credibility you may have had, if any. So please refrain from making any further unsourced edits if you're going to continue to dish out uneducated insults as you have in your recent posts. --Šarukinu 17:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You can poke fun at us and ridicule us as much as you like. Though we Assyrians today are not the ancient and powerful empire we used to be, and it's true that we are a dying community today, that's irrelevant as far as this article is concerned. This article is not only about the ancient Assyrians. Not at all. It's about modern Assyrians, yes, but it should also mention some parts of our history. Minor parts. Otherwise people may get the impression that we came out of nowhere. EliasAlucard|Talk 10:05 29 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

EliasAlucard, Dbachmann has given you a perfectly understandable rationale for his edits, but you seem determined to see this as some kind of anti-Assyrian bias. As you acknowledge, this article is about modern Assyrians; therefore, the intro should not be giving so much space to Sargon and the Assyrian empire. If I'm trying to find out about modern Assyrians I don't want to wade through a bunch of stuff about Sargon first--especially since the connection doesn't seem to be indisputable ("are believed to have descended"). This seems like perfect material to start the "History" section, from where I can then link to Akkad, Sargon, or whatever. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Throughout Assyrian history, we've seen the Akkadian influence on the Assyrians, first with Royal names like Naram-Sin and Sharrukin, and then with their military and empirical pursuits, art, culture, etc. You can't bring up the argument of an antiquity frenzy, because then we can bring up the same argument for German people, English people, etc. The fact that Assyrians identify with the Akkadians is, and has always been, a significant element of their identity. Furthermore, there is a maximum of 2 sentences devoted towards Sargon of Akkad and the Akkadians, which does not stray from the purpose of the article at all - it merely provides a backdrop of the Assyrian identity.--Šarukinu 03:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I don't think Dbachmann's edits are in any way "anti-Assyrian". In fact, Dbachmann and I, agree on the facts (more or less anyway). His comparison however, with antiquity frenzy, is a huge insult. He's trying to compare us with the Germans of Nazi Germany, and use it as some valid excuse just to justify his rationale for removing content from this article. I'm not an easily offended guy, but that's an insult. Not to mention, it's an article he recently created. I'm just waiting until he starts adding something about Assyrians in that article. Ridiculous. Anyway, I agree that this article on the Assyrian people should be focused on the modern Assyrians. But how is that possible, by avoiding to mention everything related to our forefathers, the ancient Assyrians? Why even call us Assyrians if we are supposed to ignore everything related to our ancestors? Now, we can rephrase the intro content a little bit, but this article should put some focus (doesn't have to be much) on the old Assyrians. And removing the Akkadian language by using this reason: No need of listing Acient langueges i dont see on the article Arab, the Nabatean language?" [1]. What? Who cares about some Arab article? Who said the Arab article is a standard setting article for all historical people here on Wikipedia? EliasAlucard|Talk 13:40 30 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'd really avoid the Nazi analogies. Godwin's law and all that. I don't think anyone wants to "ignore everything related to [your] ancestors"--I just don't think Sargon should be in the lead. It should be the first item in the "History" section. Imagine you're a reader who knows very little about the history of the Near East, ancient or modern--how does a sentence like "The title of "King of Babylon" was "King of Sumer and Akkad" as translated from the Akkadian Šār Mat Šūmerī ū Akkadī" help you understand anything? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'd really avoid the Nazi analogies. Godwin's law and all that. — Tell that to Dbachmann, he's the one comparing Assyrians with Nazis. We could replace Sargon of Akkad with the deified Assyrian progenitor Ashur, no? I think that would be more fitting. Also, mentioning Aram somewhere would be nice too. Still, the Akkadian lineage shouldn't be ignored completely. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:31 30 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Listen here, the way I see it is that there is no evidence that exists to say that the modern day assyrians and those of Sargon's kingdom are different. Therefore, without sounding too personal or too insulting, WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM, GOT A POINT, PROVE IT OR LEAVE IT ALONE!!!Tourskin 05:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tourskin, you said it man. EliasAlucard|Talk 12:50 01 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN. Please also realize that no one is saying that Sargon, Ashur, etc. should be removed from the article--this is a dispute about what should be in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, ownership is a huge issue with this article. Dbachmann thinks he owns this article, and that it should be modelled after his point of view. He even calls it: If you disagree with what I consider the perfectly obvious scope of this article. Come on? Perfect scope? Obviously, this guy thinks he own this article. I am of the opinion that he's ruining it. He's removing sources and facts, like for instance that the ancient language of the Assyrians was Akkadian, et cetera, just to fit his perspective. When other editors disagree with his edits, he resorts to ad hominem attacks; calling us Assyrian nationalists, comparing us with Nazis, ridicules us, and so on. What's up with that? Obviously, Dbachmann is completely out of line. EliasAlucard|Talk 17:06 01 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Again, stop it with the Nazi stuff: Dbachmann never said what you're saying, and to keep repeating it is uncivil and not conducive to a good discussion. The scope of this article is indeed perfectly obvious, and everyone agrees what it is: the modern Assyrians. Unfortunately, the vast bulk of this article is not about the modern Assyrians, but stuff about Sargon and the ancient meaning of Assyria. What should be going on here is documentation of the recent history of the Assyrians, and their modern culture. For whatever reason, though, ancient history is receiving more attention, and there's not even anything about the period between the 4th century BC and the 19th century. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being uncivil here. Dbachann's being uncivil. Please have a look at Dbachmann's recently created article antiquity frenzy, which he compared us with. It's full with references to Nazis discovering some ancient "Aryan" civilisation, claiming to be their ancestors. He is trying to use this poor article, as an argument, to remove everything related to our [Assyrians] forefathers. Like I said, it's an insult, a poor one at that. If you're too slow to recognize this insult, well, I was extremely clear in describing it. Now, back to the subject here. You say this article focuses too much on Akkadians and Sargon. How exactly? It mentions him briefly in the intro, along with the Akkadians and Aramaeans, which are, the backbone in the modern Assyrian people. I think that's of a very important note. Why should this be removed? It's a short note in the intro. It's not like it takes up half the article's content. EliasAlucard|Talk 18:55 01 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

You are being uncivil. To read Dbachmann's reference to antiquity frenzy as calling you, personally, a Nazi is ridiculous, and your harping upon it absurd.

To concentrate on this article, the problem with having Sargon/Akkadians/Aramaeans in the lead is that this is really Assyrian prehistory--as the article itself says, we don't get Assyrians until circa 7th century BCE. (This conflicts with the account given in Assyria, though, which one do you think is right?) The lead of this article should very briefly say something like "The Assyrian people are descended from the ancient Assyrians of Mesopotamia, who, in the 7th century BC, controlled the vast Neo-Assyrian Empire which stretched from Egypt and Anatolia, across Mesopotamia, to western Iran." That's copied straight out of History of the Assyrian people, which is kind of a mess right now, and maybe should be merged with this article. Then, in the lead, we have a few more sentences about the history of the Assyrians after the Neo-Assyrian empire. Then, in the "History" section (you know, the section right after the lead), you have a brief treatment of prehistoric/bronze age Assyria, with links to the fuller treatment at Assyria. The point here is that the lead should be a brief summary of the material covered in the article (see WP:LEAD), and, as we all agree, this article is about the modern Assyrians. We haven't really defined "modern", of course, but I imagine we mean that the article focuses on the last couple of centuries, esp. 20th century. Another question is whether there's supposed to be a split between culture and history, with history going in History of the Assyrian people and culture here, but my opinion is that there's so much overlap between the two it makes more sense to have a single article. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you're making a big deal out of this. I think the article is fine as it is right now. Some more facts could be added. The article could expand a little, but I don't see a point in removing content from it and putting it in other articles. History of the Assyrian people article is fine (if you ignore Dbachmann's recent edits on it, removing content as usual, which is what he does best). But really, if you want to write on the modern Assyrians, the only material you'll have, is that we're stateless, we're being treated like shit in the middle-east by muslims, and more or less, wiped out because we're Christians. That is all. Oh yeah, there's an Assyrian diaspora as a result of this too. Really, there's not much else to write about us at the moment. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:20 01 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I guess you haven't been following what's been going on with the History of the Assyrians page. I created that page because this article was too long and disorganized. I'm planning on further expanding the history page, but it's going to take some time because I'm gathering my sources - that article is going to be done right, and done very well.
Now, as for this matter with Dbachmann and the whole issue with Sharrukin of Akkad. EliasAlucard raised a very valid point, in that Dbachmann was in fact comparing Assyrians to the nationalistic Nazis - why else would he post a link to his antiquity frenzy page and refer to authors of this page as nationalistic "chauvinists"? He has lost all credibility with his insults, and his edits will no longer be taken seriously, unless he can provide valid sources.
Now back to the real issue: I guess nobody read my previous post, so I'm going to state this again: Sharrukin of Akkad was a key figure throughout Assyrian history, and he has become embedded in their culture, as seen by his legacy which lasted until the Persian conquests of "Mesopotamia". To deny him as an important component of the Assyrian identity is a huge mistake. Simply mentioning in the intro that the Assyrians of today trace their lineage back to Sharrukin and the Akkadians is quite a valid claim, and is definitely worth mentioning - it gives the average person a better idea of who the Assyrians are.
That being said, Sharrukin and Akkad will stay in the article and in the intro, whether a couple of you like it or not. It's been up in the article for a very long time now, and only yourself and Dbachmann have complained about it thus far. So let's drop the matter, and let's focus on the real issues with the article, for example the point you mentioned about there not being enough information about the period between 400 BC and 19th century AD - Let's expand on that. Meanwhile, I'm going to expand the history page. --Šarukinu 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're expanding History of the Assyrian people. I haven't followed the history of this page, no. I'm more interested in how the article can be improved in the future. In my opinion, merging the history article back into this one would be an improvement. I haven't changed my mind about mentioning Sargon in the intro, though. Your comments about Dbachmann are certainly uncivil, and you should take all Wikipedia editors seriously. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, you've made your choice to defend Dbhacmann, but I will not take him seriously so long as he ridicules and dishes out insults towards the Assyrian people. He's against all nationalists, and thus he has a critical bias which voids his credibility in this matter. Take a look at his page and you'll see what I mean. I have said nothing "uncivil" about Dbachmann, I simply stated the obvious: he insulted Assyrians, and other nationalists as well. --Šarukinu 02:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism, yeah, obviously, this guy hates nationalists and religious people. He's most likely, (a wild guess) a Communist. That's fine, because I hate Communism with an ardent fire. I agree with Šarukinu that Dbachmann's edits shouldn't be taken seriously on this article, and probably shouldn't be taken seriously on other nationalist/people related articles as well. Obviously, this dude has an anti-nationalist agenda. That's the reason why he wants to remove everything related to the old Assyrians. He doesn't want us to discover our past, in fear of rising nationalism within the Assyrian community, or something. I don't know. But his edits follow a certain anti-nationalist pattern and he's extremely POV. By the way, for the record, you could say I'm an Assyrian nationalist. It's really because you have to be in our situation. We've been through a lot of shit in our history, and we need some nationalism because we are so few today as a result of all the persecution and genocides, not to mention the Assyrian diaspora, which poses a serious threat to our very existence as Assyrians, being stateless and all. Still, I don't like comparisons with Nazis; doesn't matter if they're nationalists too. We Assyrians are Semites. Though we are not Jews, we are indeed Semites, and the Nazis hate Semites. Any comparison with Nazis, is an insult. Especially since the Nazis are anti-Christianity; they consider it a Jewish religion. Oh and Akhilleus, before you start complaining about me being uncivil, you should take into consideration, Dbachmann's Nazi-insult, and of course, Freedom of Speech; use it or lose it. You do believe in freedom of speech, do you? I do. EliasAlucard|Talk 08:08 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Boy, that's a heaping mass of incivility there--accusations of being a communist heaped on top of a tendentious misreading of Dbachmann's comments. You also keep on saying that we're talking about "removing" material when I have been saying that some material belongs not in the lead, but in the "history" section. Fortunately Šarukinu has flagged two of the most problematic sentences in his posts below, so I can see that he is interested in substantive improvements, rather than breast-beating. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm only interested in the proper representation of the Assyrian people, and our history. You raise some valid concerns, but for the record, let me say that we cannot ignore the Akkadian heritage of the Assyrian people, and subsequently the lineage going back to Sharrukin of Akkad. I agree, Akhilleus, with your edit removing the "King of Sumer and Akkad" bit from the intro - that actually doesn't even belong in the entire article, in my opinion. Many people (especially many of my fellow Assyrians) believe that the ancient Sumero-Akkadians (or "Babylonians") were ethnically Assyrian, but this is not true. They had their own dialect of Akkadian, and their ethnic makeup included Sumerian, Kassite, Amorite, and Aramaean (to name but a few). Therefore, any discussion of the ancient "Babylonians" does not belong in an article about the Assyrian people, unless of course we consider the fact that modern Assyrians claim heritage from the ancient "Mesopotamians" in general. --Šarukinu 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Šarukinu, Sargon has simply no place in this WP:LEAD. That would like beginning the Swiss people article by discussing Vercingetorix. This article needs serious scrutiny for "antiquity frenzy" inserted by Assyrian patriots. WP:ENC. Wild-eyed nationalists like Elias above should take a step back before editing here. Wikipedia has a policy. If that makes Wikipedia a "communist" project, so be it. Consider alternatives with less restrictive rules. dab (𒁳) 09:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ashurism

Would be nice if anyone interested could help out with expanding this article. Seems like an interesting topic. There's not much information available on Ashurism on the web, but I believe, this old pagan religion is a precursor to Greek mythology. EliasAlucard|Talk 12:50 01 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

This old religion predates Greek mythology by at least 1,000 years. The religion of the Assyrians was very similar (almost identical) to that of the Sumerians and Akkadians, although the cheif deity of the Assyrians was of course Ashur. I'll add what I can to the article you started, because I have access to some neat academic resources. :) --Šarukinu 12:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll do what I can. Though to be honest, I know exactly nothing on the subject, other than that Ashur (god) was some kind of forerunner to Zeus. EliasAlucard|Talk 15:01 01 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! There's much more to it than that, but it's a good start. Greek mythology was heavily influenced by Mesopotamian religion. There's a lot of theories about how the worship of Ashur came about - one of which is that Ashur was originally symbolized by a mound in the city of Ashur (or Assur) long before the temple to the god Ashur was built. So that's one thing we could mention, but I need to find you a reference for that. Also, we could mention the etymology of his name: A-shur = the beggining/start. Again, I need a reference for that because it's an Akkadian name, although it has a similar meaning in modern Assyrian ("Syriac"). --Šarukinu 13:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Ashur some kind of Assyrian ancestor, and they later on deified him and began worshipping him? From him, the Assyrian people started. He was also (according to the bible) the son of Shem. Aram was also the son of Shem. From those two, we have our roots. On the other hand, it could all be bullshit. Who knows. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:32 01 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

That's possible, but that's if you believe that the Old Testament has 100% factual information about the history of the Assyrians, which it does not :) The authors of the Old Testament were knowledgeable about the Assyrians, of course, but that was limited and they gave a very biased view of the Assyrians. That's why I don't believe the Old Testament is a reliable source on the history of the Near East. If we are to write an article about the god Ashur, we have to separate the biblical figure Ashur from the god Ashur. The biblical Ashur is definitely worth mentioning, and we should definitely place a link to the article about him, but most of the article should deal with other historical information we have on the god Ashur. --Šarukinu 00:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the term 'Ashurism' is not used in academia, and that all references come from websites of the Modern Assyrian Community. Because of this, I would doubt the value of the term. — Gareth Hughes 00:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Gareth, Ashurism isn't really an academic term, but then again, what makes "Bhuddism" such a valuable term? All it is is simply -ism added to Bhudda. Similarly, we are adding -ism to Ashur, as Ashur was the chief god of the Assyrian pantheon. Valuable or not, it's the only real term one could use to describe that religion, for the Assyrians themselves did not have a word for religion in the Akkadian language. --Šarukinu 01:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, I can find references to Buddhism in academic sources, but no 'Ashurism'. I have a bad feeling that a lot of Modern Assyrian websites are using pseudo-science to make their point. Now, I know that by saying that I'm going to be lambasted again by the usual suspects, but I have a real problem with the claims used by these sites. I think AINA stuff should not be considered a solid reference unless AINA itself offers good references. The question is: can we really trust the bulk of Assyrian websites. The answer is: their trustworthiness is unclear. I think we should go through this article and question its statements and references. In academia, many of the statements of this article are considered to be doubtful. Now, I know Assyrians won't like it, but we need to get serious with the sources used here. Doesn't that sound fair? — Gareth Hughes 01:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, I rarely trust websites like AINA, with respects to their historical information. I'm all about consulting real academic sources such as Journal of Near Eastern Studies, JSTOR, etc. All sources I use for my edits are backed by real academic sources, and I hope that everyone else will make an effort to do the same. However, back to the topic of the term "Ashurism". As I said before, in ancient times there was never a case where the Assyrians had a word in their language for "religion". However, we know for a fact that they had religion, based on their various texts and reliefs, from which we deduced their culture and set of religious views, organized pantheon, etc. Therefore, how do we refer to this religion? We can call it "Assyrian religion", but technically Christianity can also qualify as an Assyrian religion, which was adopted shortly after the death of Jesus Christ.
The thing about the term "Ashurism" is that it is in fact widely used, perhaps not much (if at all) in academia, but by the general Assyrian community, and by others who wish to refer to the ancient Assyrian religion (after all, it is much easier to say). Think about it: Ashurism and Buddhism are equal terms, they both share the same purpose. The major difference is that knowledge of the Assyrians is not in the mainstream culture, whereas the average person is familiar with Buddhism. However, I understand that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so the content must be academic. So what are possible solutions? Is there an academic alternative? I just did a search on the University of Toronto Library journal database, and it brought up nothing.--Šarukinu 02:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not call it Assyrian religion or ancient Assyrian religion? Similar articles are Religion in ancient Greece, Religion in ancient Rome, Germanic paganism. So Religion in Assyria is another possibility. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we continue this discussion on its associated talk page? EliasAlucard|Talk 08:29 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

"King of Sumer and Akkad"

The following sentence needs to be worked into the article a little bit better (or otherwise removed):

The title of "King of Babylon" was "King of Sumer and Akkad" as translated from the Akkadian Šār Mat Šūmerī ū Akkadī.[14]

Right now, this line is just tossed in at the end of a paragraph which isn't really related. --Šarukinu 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This line has been removed. See the history page. --Šarukinu 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultures merged to form ancient Assyrian culture?

Sorry, another line which needs to be reworked (something I'm most likely going to have to do):

Eventually Aramaean tribes assimilated into the Assyrian empire and their language became dominant, while the different cultures merged to form the ancient Assyrian culture around the 7th century BC

This isn't entirely true. The inhabitants of Assyria were assimilated into Assyrian culture, such that they were largely "Assyrianized". Starting with Tiglath-Pileser III, the various people which were conquered by the Assyrians were treated as citizens of mat Ashur, a new concept which arguably aided in Assyria's stability as the world's first true empire. We have evidence of countless cases where foreigners adopted Assyrian names, Assyrian kings established Assyrian domains in foreign conquered lands (such as Til Barsip), and even examples of Assyrian art influencing art in Greece in the early 1st millenium BC. What I'm trying to say is that Assyrian culture wasn't so much a synthesis of the various different ethnic groups that comprised the Assyrian empire, as this line in the intro seems to suggest. Rather, it was Assyrian culture that spread throughout the greater Near East until Assyria's decline & demise.
Does anybody have any suggestions on how we can fix this? --Šarukinu 23:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? I mean, isn't that exactly what happened? Did the Assyrians not defeat and conquer the Aramaean tribes, and then deported them into the Assyrian Empire and made them Assyrians? EliasAlucard|Talk 16:52 07 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and no. They definitely "made them Assyrians" by heavily Assyrianizing them, but to say that the cultures merged suggests that the original Assyrian culture was replaced, which of course was not the case. Yes, the Akkadian language was suppressed by Aramaic, but Akkadian names were still much more prominent, and all other aspects of Assyrian culture flourished alongside the demise of the Akkadian language, as I have briefly outlined.--Šarukinu 05:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that the language of the Aramaeans merged with the culture of the Assyrians, I'd say "merged" is the right word. EliasAlucard|Talk 15:45 09 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Language and culture are two different things, Elias. However, a lot of culture is transmitted through language, that's a proven fact. Still, to say that the different cultures merged to form the ancient Assyrian culture around the 7th century BC gives the reader the mistaken impression that 1) ancient Assyrian culture was based or dependent on the merging of different neighbouring cultures, and 2) ancient Assyrian culture is only as old as the 7th century BC. Based on the evidence that Assyriologists have gathered over the past 150 years, it is clear that the Aramaic language suppressed the Akkadian language, but there is little to no evidence of Aramaic culture suppressing Assyrian culture (refer to what I commented on the art, personal names, etc, that spread throughout Assyria's domination of the Near East). Furthermore, this sentence, if it is to be kept in the article, must differentiate which period of Assyrian culture was the product of this "merging". --Šarukinu 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your points. It would also be nice, if we could find some sources about the "Aramaization" of ancient Assyria. By the way, how many were the Aramaeans anyway? I mean, it must've been quite a few to change the entire language of a vast empire like that. Though, I doubt they were as many as the Assyrians. EliasAlucard|Talk 23:11 09 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

There is a common misconception about the ancient "Aramaeans". Many people believed that all the Semitic kingdoms to the west of Assyria were ethnically Aramaean, which of course is not true - it was mainly the language and, to a lesser extent, the culture that spread across the Levantine coast & other regions West of Assyria. As a result, the various states in these regions adopted Aramaic as their official and vernacular language, and they came to be known and identified as "Aramaeans". Nobody knows for sure how many there were, but you're definitely right, there were hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Aramaic-speaking people that were displaced and deported within the Assyrian empire, and this is why Aramaic spread so fast and over such a vast geographical area. When kings like Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II deported the inhabitants of cities and states that they conquered, they unintentionally fostered the swift spread of the Aramaic language. Aziza, the Assyrian empire wasn't "Aramaicized". All that changed (as far as we know) was the language. Like I said before, Assyrian art, religion, personal names (all key elements of culture) remained relatively unchanged in the face of the spread of the Aramaic language. --Šarukinu 22:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so what do you suggest, for a rewrite? By the way, I am considering rewriting the Swedish Wikipedia article on Assyrians: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrier It is in a terrible shape. Got any decent sources? EliasAlucard|Talk 16:14 10 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Let's say for instance the United States loosens it's immigration laws and allows Mexicans and Cubans to flood the South East and South West. Then over a few generations Spanish and Spanish-English Creoles start becoming dominant in those regions ultimately displacing English. Let us also assume that the same government remains in power albeit with changes in demographics. Are the people that are now Spanish speaking and lets even assume Catholic all of a sudden Spanish or Mexican or Cuban? No. They're not. They are American. Melting pots form ethnic identies over generations of assimilation. It's not only the foreign elements that are assimilated but also the dominant culture also picks up from the group being assimilated thereby somewhat becoming intertwined in the whole process. Basically what I'm trying to say is that names of ethnic groups and attributes of ethnic groups are dynamic. They constantly evolve. These disputes are pointless.Sharru Kinnu III

It's ironic. I just had a dispute with a Syriac friend of mine, over this. He, like most Syriacs, seriously believes he's an Aramaean. I asked him to explain to me, why the Neo-Assyrian Empire had a change in language from Akkadian to Aramaic. He had no idea about this. Now, how the hell are you going to explain to these confused Syriacs that they are in fact, ethnic Assyrians, when they don't even know basic shit like this and refuse to listen out of some silly pride? Unbelievable. EliasAlucard|Talk 23:39 10 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

What I suggest for a re-write is that we remove "750 BC" from the sentence - as I suggested before, this can misinform the reader that Assyrian culture dates only as far back as 750 BC. Sharru Kinnu raised a good point, and it's highly possible that the Assyrian culture picked up elements from the Aramaeans that subsequently became assimilated into Assyrian society. Some sort of "merger" is highly possible, but to say that the different cultures merged to form the ancient Assyrian culture around the 7th century BC, and not source it, is a bit ambiguous (which cultures merged, if at all, and which didn't?), and sounds unprofessional. Here's what I suggest:
Eventually Aramaean tribes assimilated into Assyrian society, and their language, Aramaic, supplanted the native Akkadian language, due in part to the mass relocations enforced by Assyrian kings of the Neo-Assyrian period. The modern Assyrian identity is therefore believed to be a synthesis of the the major ethnic groups which inhabited Assyria-proper, which were, for the most part, Assyrian and Aramaean.
That's all I have for now. I'm just looking for some sources so I can reference that bit. --Šarukinu 16:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that rephrasing sounds pretty good, and most likely, historically accurate. As for the relocations and mass deportations, how about this source (it's from Washington State University) and Richard N. Frye (he's a scholar of Harvard) explaining it here? Though to be fair, neither of these sources mention Aramean tribes being assimilated, but they both explain the process and they are scholarly sources. I don't think it can be that impossible to find about the Aramaean people part. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:04 14 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

That's great for now! I'll see if I can find more sources in the meantime. :) --Šarukinu 05:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian cuisine

Cuisine is a very important part of culture. I'm ashamed that so much effort goes into arguing over trivial details about our identity yet no one likes to actually write about our culture such as our music, food, customs, etc. Help with some of the other articles. There are too many people waring over this article. Concentrate on all the finer details and let us improve all the articles relating to Assyrians and Assyria. With that said: I would like you all to take a look at the updated cuisine page. I have been working on that all day. I could use a little help. Sharru Kinnu III 18:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and contributions, Sharru Kinnu. But the issues we're debating with respects to our identity are in no way trivial. It's a matter of people (including the Assyrians themselves) being properly educated about the origins of Assyrians - that's arguably more important than cuisine. Still, you're right, the other pages need to be improved. I'll continue to work on information related to identity, that's more important to me at this point. It's crucial that people know who we are and where we came from. When I'm finished correcting all the misconceptions, I'll focus on the smaller articles. Posh bshena. --Šarukinu 01:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its important for all of us to contribute anyway we can, be it if our expertise is cuisine or identity, etc. That is why I created the Assyrian WikiProject. We Assyrians have an obligation to do so since our people are one of the least educated people in terms of their own history/culture. Chaldean 01:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I spent all day yesterday on the article. Let me know what you guys think.Sharru Kinnu III 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no question as to our identity. We are Sourayeh and have been for more than 6000 years. There is no disputing that. Before that I could care less if the Akkadians merged with the Sumerians (or anyone else Sargon's empire conquered forming the basis for Babylonian society). There are people who don't know where they come from after a few generations especially here in America. Souraya is synonymous with Aturaya/Ashuraya as far as I'm concerned being that it was derived from it (the Greek title simply referred to anyone inhabiting Syria at least while they were governing it [including the Greek-speaking citizens]). My name isn't Sargon for nothing and half my relatives aren't named Ashur, Shamiram, Nineveh, Nahrain, or Ninos for nothing. Souraya became synonymous with Aramaya many generations ago and Kaldaya implies someone who is a cleric (magician as the Romans and Greeks misconcieved it) of the ancient astrological "religion" (belief system) or in modern days an adherant of the church of the same name. Why can't we all agree that all these names lead to the same people. Ethnicity is as superficial as religion. It can evolve into something completely different over time. I would like someone to claim that modern Judaism is exactly the same as the religion of Abraham or that the Noah story of the ark isn't derived from Mesopotamian mythology as was the story of Moses being very similar to that of Sargon of Akkad. I mean just remember the listening game. Tell someone something and tell him to pass it on to the next guy then to the next and so on and after twenty people have the last recipient of the message document it and poof there is your bible or history book.Sharru Kinnu III 17:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Syria in another context referred to the territory of Assyria outside of Assyria propper meaning Canaan and Aram aka the Highlands and Lowlands off the coast of the East Mediteranean. In any case Aramaic had become lingua franca througout the Fertile crescent forming a somewhat homogenous society. Even before Christianity there were similarties in mythological beliefs similar to those of ancient Rome and Greece where they shared much in common in belief but weren't exactly identical in every aspect. In our case- The Assyrian Case, where do we inhabit? Tell me not Assyria propper and I'll tell you you're wrong. Where exactly are the mountains of Iraq, Turkey, and Iran and even in the case of Syria between the two rivers. Sharru Kinnu III 17:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC):::::Ar-Ram aka Ara Ramanta = Aram. Aramaya simply means Highlander. That's is like us calling Egyptians Misraya which is not their actual name in Coptic or ancient Egyptian. Just another example of ethnonyms being rather erroneous and superficial. Sharru Kinnu III 20:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Old Language and religion

I really dont think its helpful or appropriate to have Ashurism and Akkadian in the template info. I don't see ancient Greek language and religion being written in the infobox of Greek people and I believe strongly in Wikipedia being consistent. What do you guys think. Chaldean 20:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I wholly agree. It is pointless to state in the info box. It should be somewhere in the history of our people. Sharru Kinnu III 20:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's perfect where it is (in the template info). It's easily readable from there. I think it should stay. I don't see the problem. I think it looks very neat like that. Also, how other articles are on Wikipedia, doesn't necessarily have to be the case, that all articles are modelled after some specific article. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:57 18 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

No big deal. You guys decide. Sharru Kinnu III 22:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Something I would like to point out that is VERY IMPORTANT...

I think this article needs to be re-written for those who have no understanding of who Assyrians are. It needs to be written well so as not to confuse people. I understand our people are confused but that is no reason to confuse everyone else and get them caught up in our identity-crisis. This needs to be written journalistically as if it were in a newspaper or a magazine. I can honestly say that this is not written well for the most part. Sharru Kinnu III 14:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the article is too simple? Chaldean 15:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've already fixed the Swedish article [2] with tons of sources. I'll fix this one too, just give me a few days. I'll set the record straight. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:09 19 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

REMOVING

please make sure that we remove ashurism and akkadian. this is non sence and confuse people who have not clue about the Assyrian nation.Nochi 15:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree about this. Chaldean 15:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does it need to be removed? It's not confusing at all. Like I said, I will expand the article later, explaining it more thoroughly. I'm gathering my sources, and I will fix it later. No need to remove anything. The Aramaic we speak today is full of Akkadian words anyway. It is NOT nonsense. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:20 25 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

to be polite you do not controll the Assyrian people page alone neitehr do I. i am just follwong the standarzation of the ethnic group infobox by only adding the current language and the current religion, please also incluse islam since there are smaller minorities in Iraq and Turkey wich practice Islam. we all to activly wwatches and edit this pae shud make a vote what we shud have or not thanks. Nochi 17:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I will include the muslim Assyrians (I believe they are Mhalmoye or however it's spelled). As for the image, look, it's not an attack on any specific Assyrian churches. We simply need more up to date images, and the last two (Agha Petros and Ammo Baba) were of lousy quality. Don't take it too personal. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:03 25 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Should Kurdish Jews actually be Assyrian Jews since they spoke Aramaic and were expelled there by the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians. How are they Kurds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.230.82 (talk • contribs)

What does that have to do with anything? We haven't stated for a fact, that the Mhalmoye Arabs are Assyrians. It's very clear in the article that they may have been Assyrians, based on their Aramaic name. Also, the Kurdish Jews aren't ethnic Jews. They're not Semites. They're just Jewish by religion. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:31 29 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, I think you have misunderstood what he said, I think he was asking if Kurdish Jews were acually Assyrian jews since they were expelled to thier inhabitant region by Assyrians and Babylonians and speak Aramaic. Nochi 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You guys seemed to have strayed from reality. Assyrians are an ethno-religious group and applying a name to them as a unified group is modern history. Historically we are Sourayeh which is synonymous with Christian. In line with me stating that ethnicity is superficial as I've stated previously many times over I would like to add that in order to qualify as being "Assyrian" you must declare yourself as an Assyrian first and formost and be descended from Assyrian Christians from the Assyrian homeland. Is that clear? Sharru Kinnu III 20:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sunnis?

Some Assyrians are Sunnis? Is that a reference to the Muslim Aramaic speakers in Syria? Do we know if they really identify as Assyrians? Funkynusayri 00:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Their are very few Aramaic speaking Muslims in Syria but I am sure they dont consider themselves Assyrian. What Nochi wrote was way too misleading thats why I moved it. Chaldean 01:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Aramaic-speaking Muslims in Syria does not consider themselfs Assyrians. The Muslim Assyrians are Koy Sanjaq and Senya. Nochi 07:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Any sources on this? Any rate, I doubt they consider themselves Assyrian. Chaldean 13:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would highly doubt as well they refer to themselves as such though it may be very likely that they descended from "our people." I mean a lot of our own people don't refer to themselves as Assyrian so for Muslims born into an Arabized, Islamicized, Kurdified or Turkified society and to claim to be the enemy would be highly illogical. Sharru Kinnu III 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, they might not even have been Assyrians in the first place, the entire region spoke Aramaic, not just the Assyrian descendants. Funkynusayri 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, there may have been many Assyrians in the past, who left our people and our Churches, and did some miscegenation with Arabs and Turks and Kurds or whatever. To me, they're no longer Assyrians, even though they may have descended from ancient Assyrians. We have to be strictly ethnic on this. Also, disowning Syriac Christianity, and becoming an Arab, makes you un-Assyrian in my point of view, and should be disowned by the Assyrian nation. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:29 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

This is such a rasist view elisas!. Assyrians wich change thier faith from Christianity to Islam are still Assyrians if they contuine to speak neo-Aramaic and its culture, but!! if an Assyrian person wich became a muslim leaves his language and culture and be total Arabizied, he may consider themselfs as Arab but not for me, for me its a Arabized Assyrians Nochi 18:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not racism if it's my own people. We Assyrians should not accept Islam amongst us. Islam isn't a race. You can't call it racism. We are Christians, and we shall forever be Christians. Any Assyrian who leaves the Lord, Jesus Christ, is no longer an Assyrian. That's how strong part of the Assyrian identity, Christianity has become. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:00 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

To me the whole ethnicity debate is pointless because ethnicity along with religion may be changed. Someone who chooses to assimilate and forget their past is no longer a part of an ethnic group though genetically they may be still related but genetics and ethnicity are two different subjects. Sharru Kinnu III 18:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:04 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether they're Christians or Muslims? Neither is the original Assyrian religion. Funkynusayri 19:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the old Assyrian religion. Christianity is the only right way to go. We should not be lenient on this. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:29 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

No!, you are wrong. Assyrians was not born Christians. Ashurpanipal wasnt a christian. We are now talking about Assyrian as etnicity not religion, in Iraq there are large group of Muslim Assyrians wich also uses Arabic ttradional clothes but speaks Chaldean and consider themselfs as Assyrians. there are also secular Assyrians wich many are, are they not Assyrians?`, when u say things that they dont accept the lord therefore they are not assyirans is totaly wrong and radical. Nochi 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It matters, because the Assyrian nation, has suffered a lot due to Muslim persecution of Assyrians, and our people, are still being killed in the name of Islam in Iraq.[3] With this in mind, it would be highly immoral as an Assyrian, to convert to Islam, despite the fact that the entire Assyrian Genocide was motivated by Islam as its main trigger. Also, we have been Christians since the days of Jesus Christ himself, and we were the first nation to accept Christianity. No argument here. You leave Jesus, you should be excluded, disowned, and excommunicated as an Assyrian by all Assyrians. I don't care about any Muslim Assyrians. In my eyes, they are traitors guilty of treason, for spitting on their family heritage, that of which has suffered endless persecution by Muslims. Muslim Assyrians? Thanks, but no thanks. We are Christians. Period. This isn't arguable. Of course it's radical. We have to be. We are being slaughtered every day in Iraq, simply for believing in the Lord, Jesus Christ. We are being killed because of his name. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:20 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that's obvious POV, isn't it? Funkynusayri 19:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't care if it is. I stated facts, you make what you want out of it. Also, name me one Muslim who says he's an Assyrian. You won't find any. By the way, are you aware of how much we have been persecuted throughout history for being Christians? The Romans and the Persians (pre-Islam and before the Romans became Christians) killed a lot of our people as well, just for being Christians. Seriously, I don't think you understand, how vital Christianity is for us, as a people. It's the only thing that has kept us together (and divided us into separate Churches). It's a miracle that we still exist today, when you take into consideration, all the persecution. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:39 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it can't be verified that some Muslims do identify as Assyrians, then it's of course irrelevant. But if some do, it should be mentioned in the article for the sake of neutrality. If Assyrians were persecuted because of their religion, not their ethnicity, then these theoretical Muslim Assyrians wouldn't have been persecuted. Funkynusayri 19:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. But look, even as Christians, we are still not that sure of our Assyrian heritage. Do you seriously believe that Muslim Assyrians (if there are any), will claim to be Assyrians, despite all the Arabization they've gone through? Don't keep your hopes up. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:47 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but Nochi claims so, and if he can find a reliable source for that statement, I don't think there's an alternative to including it. Er du fra Sverige, Elias?Funkynusayri 19:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you realise that their assertion needs to be verified through DNA testing and compared with other Assyrians, right? Claiming you're a duck, doesn't make you a duck ;) — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:54 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they've recently been Islamised and speak the same language as other Assyrians around them, what other explanation could there be? Assyrianised Arabs? Funkynusayri 20:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be some Assyrians in Iraq who have converted to Islam recently. But the numbers are so few, they most likely don't count, statistically speaking. Most Assyrians in Iraq, rather choose death than become Muslims. That's why we have an ongoing Assyrian genocide as we speak, in Iraq, largely ignored by the entire world. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:11 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I think that convervation did sound more political than encyclopedic, Assyrians have lived in Iraq for centuries, and for centeriud they have not been killed for bieng Christians, its more for political reasons if they get thier churches bombed but also for bieng christians too, im not sure about it and i dont like to talk about political. but like I said Assyrian who pratice Islam are still Assyrian. people are free to chosoe thier beleifs and its rasist for us to unclude them because of a religion. Nochi 20:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Religion is not the same thing as race. This is erroneous of you to believe. Please, do not confuse the two different words. They are not synonyms. Assyrians who leave their religion, most likely end up with Arabs, and other non-Assyrians. Sure, they are Assyrians despite being Muslims. But you have to realise, they very rarely end up marrying other Christian Assyrians, which of course, is the 99% majority of our people. The Muslim Assyrians marry other people. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:28 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's true. Marrige is a matter of choose, since i am an christian i wud not be so happy if my sister did marry an Assyrian Muslim but i wud not shun him or calling him arab because he are a Muslim, same with them i dont think that many Muslim assyrians woman wud marry me either because of my fatih but like i said its a matter of choose and offcaourse if muslim assyrians marry arabs they likly wil be arabized in short time. Nochi 20:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're making it sound as if Muslim Assyrian is something common. Maybe once in a while, it happens that one of us converts to Islam. They rarely do it for any other reason, than the fact that they have fallen in love with a Muslim. They marry, get kids, and their kids, seldom marry anything other than Muslims. No, for sure, there are no Assyrian Muslims out there. There are Muslims of Assyrian descent, but it's not like they qualify as 'pure Assyrians', because we're not exactly talking about Assyrians in such rare cases. What, if your grandfather's father was an Assyrian, does that make you an Assyrian? No, not really. Also, mind you, it is very rare that one of us converts to Islam. I'm sure that we've had our converts to Islam throughout history, but we're talking about rare cases. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:33 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, you just contradicted yourself aziza. If religion and ethnicity are not synonymous concepts, then in accordance with that statement (which is definitely true), one can still be Assyrian regardless of which religion he or she chooses to follow. I admire your passion for the plight of our people, but it is not for us to choose who is Assyrian or not. Assyrian blood makes you Assyrian, no argument there. Also, our fellow Christians have not always been the victims of genocide. At one point, Christians persecuted pagans (many of which were Assyrians who followed the religion of Ashur) and then Muslims during the Crusades. But in stead of pointing fingers and playing the blame game, let's get to the nitty-gritty.
It is of course logical and appropriate to include that some Assyrians practice Islam, but to include that in the info box about Assyrians or lead paragraphs would not accurately represent the Assyrian people, of which Muslims comprise a minute fraction (if at all, for I, myself, have only ever come across 2 in my lifetime, and they were both on internet forums). In that event, we would need a reliable source, and should only dedicate 1-2 sentences at most. We want to educate people about Assyrians in general, not a handful of them.
For the record, if an Assyrian willingly decides to identify with a different culture and ethnicity in light of their true heritage, then they are not Assyrian, for they themselves have denounced their heritage by doing so. If, however, an Assyrian has converted to another religion (be it Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc), and still refers to his/herself as Assyrian and acknowledges their ancestry, then that is deserving of merit, when you look at it from a nationalistic point of view. However, we should also acknowledge that modern Assyrian culture is heavily intertwined with Christianity (in particular, the three main sects which share a common origin). Culturally speaking, the modern Assyrian identity is somewhat rooted in Christianity.
I say, if we were to include one or two sentences about some Assyrians having converted to Islam, it should ONLY be done if it is reliably sourced and if we have an official and indisputable number of how many Muslim Assyrians there are. All of these aforementioned conditions are currently not met, so I suggest somebody finds a reliable source soon or else this item will be justifiably removed from the article. --Šarukinu 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can be a Muslim Assyrian. That doesn't mean the rest of us Assyrians have to accept Muslims amongst our people. Look, I've told you, we are Christians, and this isn't going to change. There's a very strong consensus amongst all Assyrians, that Christianity, is our religion. Doesn't matter if it's Chaldean Catholic, Syriac Orthodox/Catholic, or Nestorianism. We are Christians. We shall not bow down to Islam and its false claims that Jesus is not the son of God. We are not interested in a religion of war and all that Jihad crap. I would rather die than become a Muslim, and I would righteously disown all my children if they become Muslims. As should all Assyrians. For our glory will be with Jesus Christ, the Lord. Amen. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:47 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

I never said we have to "bow down to Islam". I also never said that the religion of the Assyrians is going to change. I'm saying that it is highly possible that there are Muslim Assyrians, as you now acknowledge. By the way khon, "Nestorianism" is not, and was never, accepted among the community of the Assyrian Church of the East. It's tempting to use because it's short and saves you from having to type 4 extra words, but it is inaccurate (see Assyrian Church of the East: "The Assyrian Church was split from the Catholic/Orthodox Church (the undivided Church of the East and West prior to the Great Schism of 1054) as a result of the Nestorian schism in 431, but the theology of the Assyrian church cannot be defined as Nestorianism). Your page on Nestorian Assyrians is in dire need of review or deletion, because the Assyrians have been known to resent the term "Nestorian" which was forced upon them by foreigners. --Šarukinu 00:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell are they called Nestorians then, and why has it been called Nestorian Church? I just cited sources. And what is Nestorianism anyway? Look, can we take this up on the associated talk page of the Nestorian Assyrians? Thanks. No, the Nestorian Assyrians article shouldn't be deleted. Oh and, there are Muslim Assyrians out there. They are very few, and they don't count. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:04 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Again, it has only been called "Nestorian Church" by non-adherents of the Church of the East, largely Westerners who had little knowledge of the history of the Church of the East.--Šarukinu 00:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Then we should go by the most common name: Nestorian Assyrians. That's how Wikipedia works. I don't like the Chaldean prefix either, but I don't whine over it the way you do ;) Don't worry, once the articles expand and improve, no one will call them Nestorians again. — EliasAlucard|Talk 06:28 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, let's settle one thing, which I've noticed from you in the past: you lose credibility when you say things like "I don't whine over it the way you do ;)". So reconsider your choice of words the next time you wish to get your point across, because people will never take you seriously otherwise. Now, back to business: When you do a Google Scholar search on "Church of the East" you get 430 hits, whereas "Nestorian Church" brings up 391 hits. Similarly, when I performed a search on E journals @ Scholarsportal.info (which requires access through a specific university), "Church of the East" brings up 94 hits whereas "Nestorian Church" brings up only 19 hits. You won't be able to see these last 2 links, but I would be glad to provide anybody with screenshots of the search results, if need be.
Elias, the term "Nestorian" is not formal, it's actually quite derogatory. It was a name that was forced upon the adherents of the Church of the East, as one of their most prominent historical figures, Nestorius, was ruled a heretic. Mar Nestorius is in fact venerated in our church, as seen in the liturgy, but to ignorantly name the church as you are suggesting is a little degrading, and has always been regarded so throughout history.
I see that you have mentioned on the Nestorian Assyrians page that the Assyrians of the Church of the East never call themselves "Nestorian", and that this name was enforced upon them, which is an accurate statement. But even in light of this fact, you still create a page named "Nestorian Assyrians",which I am having a hard time understanding - it's quite contradictory.
I propose that article should in stead be a stub which briefly states the erroneous nature of the term, and then can redirect to a new page called "Assyrians of the Church of the East". --Šarukinu 19:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Look man, don't pester me with this. All right? You think I like the Chaldean prefix? I don't. But that's what people call us. We are being called Chaldeans or Nestorians. I have created these pages, for the simple fact, to explain that we are neither Nestorians or Chaldeans, and that we are Assyrians. But these names, are what some of us Assyrians are known as. Don't take it too personal. I've told you, I don't like the Chaldean prefix, e.g. you can check the talk page and see what I have to say about those Assyrians who seriously believe they are Chaldeans and not Assyrians. But, the name of the articles, are simply Wiki standard. Don't make a big deal out of this. They are made to inform the public about the history of these names, and the specific part of the Assyrian peoples who go under these names. I can understand you don't like being called Nestorian. But try helping out expanding the stub in order to make it an Encyclopaedic article instead of wanting the stub deleted already. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:08 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not all right. This is not a matter of what I like or do not like - personally, the name "Nestorian" means nothing offensive to me, as it was the name of one of the my church's fathers. Now let me point out two major flaws with your argument: first of all, you keep trying to equate the terms "Chaldean" and "Nestorian". The name "Chaldean" was accepted by the former Church of the East members who branched off to join the Catholic Church, and thus the Chaldean Catholic Church was founded - that became the official name of the church, as per the declaration of the Pope at the time. Whether you like it or not, it is official. In the case of the Church of the East, the official name is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. Nowhere in the title do you see the name Nestorian. Second, the term "Nestorian" was used to refer to the Church of the East adherents up until the 20th Century, whereby the nationalistic movement took hold, largely as a result of Western interest. As a result, the Westerners (Europeans and N. Americans) began to refer to these people as "Assyrians", and completely dropped the appellation "Nestorian". As for the church, it maintained the name "Church of the East", as it always had, until the mid 20th century when it began to be officially called the "Assyrian Church of the East" (somebody verify that for me). In modern times, the official name for the members of the Church of the East is Assyrians. There is no need to categorize our Assyrians by various names, especially those which have no modern value. --Šarukinu 04:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you don't understand? Nestorians, are used interchangeably with Assyrians, from the Assyrian Church of the East. This is not about official or unofficial names. Wikipedia articles are created with the most frequent name used. For instance: [4] What people do you think that article is talking about? It couldn't be Assyrians, no? What about this one: [5] Get the fuck out of here, does it actually spell it flat out, Nestorian Assyrians? Unbelievable. It couldn't be, could it? Look, Nestorian is a very common name for Assyrians. There are historical and religious reasons for this. It's the same reason as to why Maronites are called Maronites, you are called Nestorians. You both decided to follow some guy, and you, or the world, took after his name.

Judging by your profanity, I can see you know you're wrong on this issue. You have no clue what you're talking about, Elias. And your websites have no value - if it's not a .edu site or something of the sort, then it isn't reliable. Of course, if you do a search on google.com, you'll run into some Japanese website that isn't at all reliable. Aziza, the most common name for the Church of the East IS the Assyrian Church of the East, NOT Nestorian. The term Nestorian, as used to refer to Assyrians, has not been in widespread use since the early 20th century. Try and get a grasp of that, it's a fact, and comes from a reliable source which is itself reliably sourced, unlike your mediocre websites. I'm going to give you a little treat - a quote from a book entitled The Assyrian Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity by Christoph Baumer (published 2006):

The expression 'Nestorian' is, in fact, incorrect on three levels. First, Nestorius, who was Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431, neither founded the Church nor, second, ever worked in it. Third, its dogma is based not on the writings of Nestorius but rather on the works of Diodore of Tarsus and, above all, Theodore of Mopsuestia... The Church of the East has always defended itself against the name 'Nestorian', although it honours Nestorius as one of its Church Fathers...[the term] 'Nestorian Church' is dogmatically inaccurate. (pp.8)

I don't know why I ever took you seriously in the first place. Grow up nasha. --Šarukinu 07:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been known as Nestorians, for how long? 1500 years? I believe that settles it.— EliasAlucard|Talk 17:58 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and our church has been known as the Church of the East for almost 2,000 years. We have been known as Assyrians for over 6,000 years. I think that settles it. :) --Šarukinu 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make you known as Nestorians. I'm just trying to explain the misnomer. I'm actually on your side. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:25 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I know you're on my side, khon, but you have to understand that to even refer to Assyrians as "Nestorian" Assyrians somewhat supports them being called "Nestorian". I don't find it offensive, not at all. For even Mar Aprem Mooken stated that "the term 'Nestorian' is not without honour in history". The problem is that people who have little knowledge of the Assyrians and their history will be confused with all these other names like "Chaldean", "Nestorian", "Syriac", "Aramaean", etc etc. I just feel that to create a new page and name it "Nestorian" will confuse people (same goes for "Chaldean Assyrians" and "Syriac Assyrians"). What I suggest is to create one single page, be it as large as the Assyrian people article (or larger), which includes the different denominations as headers of different sections, and deals with the identity debate, whereby you can have a section on the term "Nestorian". Another final note on the term "Nestorian": nowadays when it's used in scholarly works, it is always placed in quotation marks, as has become the standard. Posh bshena. --Šarukinu 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You're making it sound like you've never been called Nestorians. You have, unfortunately, been called Nestorians. This is a fact, and it must be dealt with, and sorted out, and making it a taboo won't help in any way. The problem is that people who have little knowledge of the Assyrians and their history will be confused with all these other names like "Chaldean", "Nestorian", "Syriac", "Aramaean", etc etc. I just feel that to create a new page and name it "Nestorian" will confuse people (same goes for "Chaldean Assyrians" and "Syriac Assyrians"). — No, it won't be confusing at all. These pages, are meant to explain our history, in intricate details, and why it came to be, that different names were introduced and applied on the Assyrian people. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:55 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get my point. I know they have been called "Nestorians" in the past. They were once commonly called "Nestorians" by foreigners, namely the Western missionaries. The term "Nestorian" today has lost prominence, and in stead the members of the Church of the East are commonly called Assyrians. You mentioned yourself that it's "all about using the most common terms". Well, my friend, the most common term for the members of the Church of the East is Assyrians. The most common name for the church itself is the Assyrian Church of the East. I have laid out all the facts, and sourced them. I can see you have your heart set on making this "Nestorian" page, so go ahead and do as you wish. Let's see what other people think. --Šarukinu 04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The term "Nestorian" today has lost prominence, and in stead the members of the Church of the East are commonly called Assyrians. — That is beside the point. "Nestorians", in actuality, Assyrians, are a historic people, who spread Christianity all the way to China. An article explaining this, is relevant, so that uneducated people can get an idea of who the "Nestorians" were. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:00 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it's not beside the point, as you made it one of your strongest points that it's all about the most commonly used term. But looking back on this discussion, I think you're right, it's a good idea to have a page about "Nestorian" Assyrians, so long as you be sure to have the term in quotation marks, as is the standard in scholarly discourse. If you need any help with that page, let me know khoun. I have a huge hardcover book about the Church of the East from 2006 which will definitely be of value. --Šarukinu 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Chaldean/Syriac/Nestorian Assyrians

Why are you removing them? And why did you change the image? — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:12 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I changed the image because it implies that Ashour Asho is as well-known as Mar Ephrem and Ashurbanipal, when he is a small-time boxer who recently made pro in the junior division. How does he represent the Assyrian people and their history? Also, may I ask, why did you change the image in the first place, especially without bringing it up in the discussion page first. If you're going to make edits, please take them up with the other editors first.
Second, the terms "Chaldean", "Syriac", "Nestorian" are not ethnic terms, they bear religious connotations. The Assyrian people are not divided along ethnic lines, so do not misinform people by including a section called "Ethnic divisions". I see that you changed it to "Religious Divisions", that is much better! As for the term Nestorian, I'll continue the discussion here so that everybody can see without having to redirect to newly created pages. If you do not know what "Nestorianism" means, you should definitely not be creating a page with that term as the title, let alone calling adherents of the Church of the East "Nestorians". The term "Nestorian" was incorrectly used to label an adherent of the Church of the East (by non-Assyrians and non-adherents of this church), and was derived from Nestorius. Read the article, and the article on the Assyrian Church of the East, and you'll know what I'm talking about. "Nestorianism" is simply a set of theological views, many of which remained in the theology of the Assyrian Church of the East, such as the concept of Mary being the mother of Christ (as opposed to the Catholic and Orthodox concept of Mary being the mother of God).--Šarukinu 00:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the image, not due to Ashour Asho's recent fame, but because we need a more recent, contemporary example of Assyrians in the image. Ashour Asho, just like Ammo Baba, is an Assyrian sportsguy. The two previous images, were of low quality. Freydun Atturaya, deserves to be in the that image just as much as Agha Petros. Also, Freydun's image, looks a lot cooler; he's in a more philosophical position, and it's of better quality (I resized it with great filters, Lanczos3 and everything). Really, this image is a lot better than the old one, because it reflects Assyrians from ancient times, to modern day civilisations. As for your other point, I changed it into religious divisions. What's the problem? They are known as Nestorians. Get over it. Are you an Assyrian Church of the East member? I created these articles: Chaldean Assyrians, Nestorian Assyrians and Syriac Assyrians, not because there's a huge difference between them, but because I wanted to sort out all the mess that these Assyrian denominations are fighting about. Don't worry, once we have expanded these articles and added lots of serious sources, no one will erroneously label them Chaldean or Nestorian again. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:53 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

We don't need three different articles to clear up the misconceptions, Elias. You can do that all in one concise article, or in the Assyrian people article itself, under the "identity section", which has already been started. And there are already pages on the Assyrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Catholic Church, and Syriac Orthodox Church.
Back to the image: Ashour Asho and Ammo Baba are on two completely different levels. The latter was a national figure, not only among the Assyrians, but among all Iraqis - he was once the coach of the Iraqi national soccer team, where as Asho is a fresh face with no real recognition, except in the local area of Chicago. I understand that the pictures are in black-and-white, but replacing somebody who was venerated as a Iraqi and Assyrian national hero with a kid who nobody has heard of is an immature decision. If you want to include more up-to-date pictures of truly famous Assyrians, you can include politicians, religious figures, or prominent singers. --Šarukinu 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Those articles are not about the Churches, they will deal with the Assyrian people belonging to those Churches; not their actual Churches. For instance, the Chaldean Assyrians article, is already huge, and it won't fit in the main Assyrian article. The Nestorian Assyrians article, will expand and cover other topics not related to the Assyrian people article. And I'm sure we'll get enough material to the Syriac Assyrians article as well. Fitting them all into the Assyrian people article, would make this one huge. As for Ammo Baba, look, find me a more high quality picture of him, and we can include it as well. There's not exactly a 4 images limit. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:04 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just merge the "church" pages of the respective sects with the "people" pages of the same? We did the same with the "Maronite people" and "Maronite church" pages a few days ago. It makes it a lot more accessible than having to wade through different links. Funkynusayri 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Mar Muhammad Sleema

Do you guys ever contemplate weather if things would be different if the church forefathers weren't so stubborn. If the early church would have just cannonized Muhammad and never allowed for the story to have evolved into what it is today Islam would be just another sect of Christianity albeit a heretical one in the eyes of Rome it nevertheless would have been similar to "Gnostic" branches of the Abrahamic religions note I didn't say Christianity for the reason that many so-called gnostics didn't accept Jesus as Christ such as the Mandeans. Sharru Kinnu III 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I never knew that... do you have a link to an article or anywhere we can read up on that? --Šarukinu 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's pray such a corruption of the Christian faith never happens. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:14 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Picture for Assyrian People infobox

I've noticed a few problems with the current picture in the Assyrian people infobox. First of all, the picture used for Ashurbanipal is actually a picture of a statue of Ashurnasirpal II. Second, the pictures of Agha Petros and Ammo Baba (two venerated Assyrian heroes) were removed and in stead replaced with two lesser known figures, including Ashour Asho, a fresh face who is not well known, except to a limited extend within the Chicago Assyrian community. I propose the following image:

File:Assyrian people header.jpg

Notice that I have included an actual representation of Ashurbanipal, a clearer picture of Agha Petros, and a contemporary picture of an internationally known singer, Linda George. Furthermore, the link to Christianity in the "Religions" section will redirect to Syriac Christianity, as opposed to the general page Christianity. Here's what the infobox will look like with the picture updated:

Assyrians
ܐܬܘܖ̈ܝܐ ( Āṯūrāyē)

File:Assyrian people header.jpg Ashurbanipal • Saint Ephrem • Agha Petros • Linda George
Total population
1,600,000
Regions with significant populations
Iraq	800,000+
Syria	500,000
Iran	10,000
Turkey	5,000
United States	83,000
Jordan	77,000
Sweden	35,000
Australia	24,000
Germany	23,000
France	15,000
Russia	14,000
Canada	7,000
Languages
Akkadian (ancient) Neo-Aramaic (modern) (various Neo-Aramaic dialects)
Religion
Ashurism (ancient) Christianity (modern) (various Eastern denominations)
Related ethnic groups
other Semitic peoples

Let me know what you guys think.

I don't like it. The Ashurbanipal picture is descent, but it's better to see him pictured from his face rather than his profile. Also, the previous image of Ashurbanipal, has a dark, mysterious, eerie face attached to it. Looks a lot more badass. As for Linda George, that picture is certainly not PD, and though she is extremely hot, this isn't a fame contest. Your rationale of including her because of her fame, is doubtful. We might as well include Andre Agassi then, because he's more famous than her. Look, this is not about who's more famous. We have a descent looking image right now, of Freydun Atturaya and Ashour Asho. If you want to, we can add a few more images to the one we have now, without removing any. You just try and get permission for that image of Linda so we can use it as GFDL, and we're all set. Also, I want to resize the pictures, because I know how to do it properly. Either way, it's a better license as GFDL and have it uploaded on Commons. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:52 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

The previous picture wasn't Ashurbanipal, as I already stated. It was Ashurnasirpal, a different king. And we're not trying to be artistic by adding "mystery" and "eeriness" to the pictures. We just want to properly represent the Assyrian people, which, by the way, is not accomplished by adding pictures of unknown Assyrians such as Ashour Asho. I find it funny that you think we shouldn't be removing any pictures when you removed Agha Petros and Ammo Baba. Did you consult with anybody before doing so? I sure didn't hear anything from you before changing it.

Here's how we're going to settle this. We will have a vote on who to include in the infobox. I'll post messages in Wikiproject Assyria and on various users' discussion pages, and we will get a consensus on this - the only right way to do this.

For now, let's get some more comments on this picture. What does everybody else think? --Šarukinu 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The lady is definetly attractive and adds alot of style to a page that focuses alot on death and diaspora, even if that is the unfortunate fate of Assyrians. Try to find a Public Domain image. Tourskin 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So she gives you a boner. That's not a reason to include her picture. We're not trying to embellish our terrible situation through good-looking Assyrian women. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:52 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Listen here you disgusting fool. Women are not sex objects. Secondly, watch your tongue. You have heard my opinion; I believe that she adds some spark. Considering that shes the only female in the image it makes sense to have her. If its all men how lame would that be? I have cast my vote in the Assyria Wikiproject page. Tourskin 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

lol — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:02 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Enough. Please both of you calm down and speak with professionalism. Chaldean 00:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Elias, check out this page to vote for who you want in the picture, and possibly add new nominees. As for your derogatory suggestion as to why I included Linda George, I'm sorry but you're mistaken. I added Linda George for numerous reasons: first of all, there were previously no women in the picture. Second, she is internationally renowned, not only among Assyrians (check out her website). --Šarukinu 04:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest as an Assyrian who feels fairly knowledgeable on Assyrian subject matter I would have to say that the current banner needs to change because I have no clue as to who Ashour Atto or who the Atturaya guy are. I know Linda George and I know about Agha Petrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.3.182 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ashurbanipal • Saint Ephrem • Agha Petros • Linda George" -- I do hope you can see this sequence is hilarious? Are we "the Encyclopedia written by and for pubescent patriots" now? dab (𒁳) 09:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a very logical sequence: somebody from the peak of Assyrian culture (Ashurbanipal), early Christian period (St. Ephrem), Genocide (Agha Petros), Diaspora (Linda George) - 4 significant periods in Assyrian history. Oh, I forgot, you're anti-nationalist... that's too bad. --Šarukinu 01:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

dab, what's bothering you now? How is this different from Persian people? Shouldn't you go annoy the people of the Aryan race, also known as Persians? :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:55 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

DNA tests

Regardless, DNA analysis that has been conducted "shows that [Assyrians] have a distinct genetic profile that distinguishes their population from any other population." Genetic analysis of the Assyrians of Persia demonstrated that they were "closed" with little "intermixture" with the Muslim Persian population. — is there any more information available on this? On which group of Assyrians, were these tests conducted? Chaldeans/Nestorians/Syriacs? Were the results exactly identical? The source doesn't reveal much detail. I'd like to get down to the bottom of this. So far, this is all I can find. Doesn't reveal much. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:48 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't got more info on that exact study, but take a look at this: http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6808/ar20iranian20genetic20cog4.gif Funkynusayri 23:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have seen this picture before. It tells me nothing. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:06 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
    • You might be interested in an article that Dr. Joel Elias wrote for Nineveh Magazine (Issue 1st and 2nd quarter, 2000) titled The Genetics of Modern Assyrians and their Relationship to Other People of the Middle East — Emil@soleyman.com 01:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I have seen this article before. Doesn't say if it was Assyrians from the Assyrian Church of the East, or Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Churches, or Chaldean Catholic Churc. That's what I want to know: on which group of Assyrians were these tests conducted? — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:28 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• The picture should tell you that Assyrians are closely related with other peoples in the Fertile Crescent, yet not with South Arabs. From the article which is also quoted here: "Analysis of the Assyrians shows that they have a distinct genetic profile that distinguishes their population from any other population. "It is important to understand that this applies to the population as a whole, not to any one individual."

One reason for the similarities in Assyrian genetic makeup, Elias says, is "the relatively closed nature of the community as a whole." A conclusion reached by Cavalli-Sforza is that the "genetic origin of groups that have been surrounded for a long time by populations of a different genetic type can be recognized as different only if they have maintained a fairly rigid endogamy for most or all of the period in which they have been in contact with other groups."

The closest genetic relationships to the Assyrians are with the native populations of Jordan and Iraq. There is also a close relationship with seven populations of the region, even though these populations contain members of three major language families: Indo-European (Iranian, Kurdish), Turkic (Turkish), and Semitic (Iraqi, Jordanian, Lebanese -- Arabic; Assyrian -- Aramaic). Elias argues that "an underlying genetic homogeneity has been 'masked' by great cultural, religious, and linguistic heterogeneity." http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2000/41-081200.html Funkynusayri 05:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ashurism updates

I made some updates to the Ashurism article. Who is Ashor Asho? For Christ's sake he's no Agha Petros and who's the guy before him??? I liked the original banner much better.Sharru Kinnu III 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sharru Kinnu, vote here for who you want to be in the banner. --Šarukinu 17:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Akkadians, Aramaeans and Assyrians

Is this ever going to stop, with reverting? I mean, what's the problem? Some Aramaean wannabe, Benne, has a difficult time accepting historical facts, that the Assyrians assimilated Aramaeans into the Assyrian empire. Stop reverting this. Several sources are provided from scholars and academics. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:50 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Juding by his edit history he likes dispute anything in favor of the Assyrian view and likes to [without discussion] change anything mentioning Assyrian into Aramaean. Go back to some of his edits they're actually kind of funny. Sharru Kinnu III 17:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and they call me "biased". — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:05 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, if you don't wisen up soon, you are headed straight for an WP:RFAR. If you are interested in Ancient Assyria, feel free to edit Assyrian Empire. This article is about the Aramaic speaking ethnic group. Listing Ashurism and Akkadian would be like listing Celtic polytheism or Gaulish language at French people. dab (𒁳) 09:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You know following the logic of Benne and Others since we now speak mainly English specifically in the diaspora we must be English now. Right? I'm English. Excellent logic guys! Aramaean means highlander in Aramaic. We also refer to mountain dwellers in Aramaic as Mountain People or Nasha d-toureh... maybe you want to call us Tourians now? Sharru Kinnu III 13:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

well, yes, once you lose the language, you may be "of Assyrian ancestry", but culturally, you obviously cease to be Assyrian. That's a gradual process of course, but once the language is lost, it's pretty much irreversible. This happens to members of every "diaspora" of course, that's nothing particular to the Assyrian one. It is also typical for second or third generation diaspora to feel particularly strongly about national identity and generally be more nationalistic than those who are still immersed in the parent culture. Those are common ailings of people in this situation, and the psychological factors may well be discussed at diaspora, but obviously should not affect our treatment of historical topics. In my experience, most nationalist trolling on Wikipedia originates with diasporas, notably Hindu, Armenian, "Black" and Assyrian. dab (𒁳) 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well just for your information in SYRIAC we call our language SOURETH not ARAMETH nor KELDANI nor anything else. We also refer to ourselves as Sourayeh not Aramayeh. 16:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing for me to not assume your a racist could back up your statement that most trolling occurs by Hindus, Blacks, and Assyrians, please provide a source otherwise I'm going to assume that's a racist/anti-ethnic statement and report it to an Admin. Sharru Kinnu III 16:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore I dispise the fact that non-Assyrians like to point out that we're not actually Assyrian when in fact we have been referring to ourselves as Aturayeh and Sourayeh for millenia. Even the Hebrew alphabet which is derived from "Phoenician" or "Aramaic" script in HEBREW is referred to as Assyrian Script "Ktav Ashuri" for the very fact that it was picked up from the Assyrians durring the time of their adminstration of Mesopotamia. Western History account of ancient History is through the Greeks and Romans whom were not so keen on facts about the middle east. Even today ask your average American History major information about the middle east and you'll hear more fiction than fact. Sharru Kinnu III 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I, seriously being offended by your racist comment that most trolling occurs by certain minorities you mentioned feel that you have no place in editing in Wikipdedia for the very openly racist comment you made and by your obvious bias views on various subject matter. Sharru Kinnu III 16:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Another fact I'd like to base on your skewed logic is by your statement that once a language is lost someone ceases to be "Assyrian" therefore Jews ceased to be "Hebrew" millenia ago since it's irreversable once the language is lost. Modern Hebrew is a reconstructed language therefore not a continuation of the ancient language therefore the ancient community dissapeared and "real" Jews therefore don't really exist. That's not my belief but that's an analsys based on your logic. Sharru Kinnu III 16:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

One more point I'd like to make in regards to your illogical philosophy is that a language doesn't define a culture nor does it give them their name. Americans aren't English though some may have ancestory that is. Religion doesn't define identity either though it may be elements of ones identity. Geography doesn't even do so. Being Assyrian is what defines being Assyrian. How does one that discovers Jewish ancestory all of a sudden convert to Judaism and is all of a sudden a Jew. You stating that once a language is lost they are no longer that race is completely wrong and Jews identify as an ethno-religious group though they stopped speaking hebrew millenia ago and adopted languages of others yet retained hebrew for liturgical purposes similar to how Maronites still use Syriac in their liturgy though speak Arabic on a daily basis. You are biased not Alucard buddy. That is my point. Sharru Kinnu III 16:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthering my anger is the fact that WE AS ASSYRIANS STILL USE AKKADIAN VOCABULARY TO THIS DAY. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Sharru Kinnu III 16:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Times like this has me feeling like that we may have to one day resort to the ways of old and show everyone that we really are Assyrian by mercilessly conquering the whole world and subjecting everyone to the wrath of God like when he used the Assyrians to destroy Israel and forcing its inhabitants to Assyria as indentured servants. Sharru Kinnu III 16:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean that litteraly but what I'm trying to say is that Zionism, Pan-Arabism/Arabization, Pan-Turkism, and Kurdification will never destroy our Identity even if they have traitors on the inside. NEVER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing for the mental migets that exist in this world; the Assyrians and Babylonians spoke Akkadian. I mean WTF?!?! Are we next going to here that they didn't exist that infact they were North and South Akkadians? Assyrian was never a name for a language in English, it refered to that dialect of Akkadian just as now Assyrians refer to Assyrian as their dialect of Aramaic. You have to realize that coining modern terms for ancient ones is going to pose more questions than answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs)

Elias, if you don't wisen up soon, you are headed straight for an WP:RFAR. — For what? I am citing sources from several academic scholars. Some self-offended Syriac Aramaean-wannabe revisionist, is removing them without discussion. It is not my problem, that he doesn't like scholars. I'm not doing anything wrong. This article is about the Aramaic speaking ethnic group. — Yeah? The ancient Assyrians spoke Aramaic too. well, yes, once you lose the language, you may be "of Assyrian ancestry", but culturally, you obviously cease to be Assyrian. That's a gradual process of course, but once the language is lost, it's pretty much irreversible. — More anti-nationalist Communist logic. Afro-Americans in the United States, are not Britons because they speak English and don't know any African language. They are still of African ancestry. You don't define a human ethnic race after culture; culture is irrelevant. Indians are not Britons because they speak English today. We Assyrians are of an Assyrian Mesopotamian race, no matter where we live on Earth, and what language we speak. But hey, I guess you subscribe to the logical fallacy that there are no human races, right? We have never called ourselves "Aramaeans", until some anti-Assyrian Assyrians recently began with revisionism (see http://www.aramnahrin.org/ ). This is because of religious fanaticism, not historical accuracy. They want to feel holier-than-thou by pretending that they are Aramaeans. In my experience, most nationalist trolling on Wikipedia originates with diasporas, notably Hindu, Armenian, "Black" and Assyrian. — User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism <--- Perhaps you should get a different hobby? I mean, stalking us like this, is obviously not healthy. You care too much about this topic. You are obsessed. Let people be a little bit proud of who they are, instead of trying to deny them their God-given right to acknowledge their ancestors. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:00 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Another thing for the mental migets that exist in this world; the Assyrians and Babylonians spoke Akkadian. I mean WTF?!?! Are we next going to here that they didn't exist that infact they were North and South Akkadians? — Well actually, that is exactly what they were. They evolved from the Akkadians, Sumerians, and perhaps some other ethnic groups, which inhabited Mesopotamia before them. Most likely, the Akkadians, since the Assyrians and the Babylonians were Semitic Akkadian speaking people. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:06 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Ashurism sourcing: great article - http://www.juedische.at/TCgi/_v2/TCgi.cgi?target=home&Param_Kat=3&Param_RB=27&Param_Red=8261 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs)

Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:15 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

The Talmud itself was written differently in Babylon (Babylonian Talmud) and in Jerusalem (Jerusalem Talmud). Polytheistic influences returned to become part of the religion - the Shechinah (God's emanation), and Lilit, the evil spirit, are really goddesses that accompany Jehovah, quite apart from Satan, the evil god. Angels are born: Matatron, Gabriel, etc. After-life, that is Paradise and Hell, which were quite absent from the Bible, now make their appearance (in the Bible, "gehenna", "gehinom", i.e. Gei Ben-Hinom, was simply the gully below the walls of Jerusalem where people threw their sewage. In late usage, that became Hell). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs)

Akkadian language

My dream would be a revival of the language as with modern Hebrew and renaming Iraq to Bab-ilu (Babylon) with it as the official language (called Modern Akkadian) using the modern Syriac alphabet with an official seperation of religion and state with the abolition of ethnic and religious censuses by government. It wouldn't be that hard of a transition even from Arabic and especially easy from Aramaic. Sharru Kinnu III 19:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How the hell did they revive Hebrew anyway? I've always wondered about that. You shouldn't focus too much on the Akkadian language though. For now, we are one step away from becoming extinct in the diaspora and back at home. [6] This is like a bad joke. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:34 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Actually we are living well in the diaspora especially here in the Detroit area in Michigan, USA. Our community has grown to be quite affluent and aware of their origins. We're very popular here in Detroit and known for being business owners. Same goes for Chicago, Modesto, Turlock, Skokee, LA, and San Diego. The obsession with Iraq in the media has sparked a cultural revival within our community worldwide. I'll look at the You Tube video when I get home from work it's banned here. Sharru Kinnu III 19:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about total assimilation in the diaspora. You have to realise, we are very few today, and we can't keep up with the rest of the world, in a diaspora. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:29 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Well for some it will be an evolution or an absorption into an homogenized society and for others it will be an evolution of the old Assyrians into the new Assyrians. My ancestors specifically were farmers and villagers just a few generations ago. Nowadays I could go to the moon if I put my mind and efforts to it and establish some type of a base/bio-dome on the moon and start the first lunar colony. How about we call that New Assyria. 75.46.3.182 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Source

Dbachmann, why are you removing the sources we've cited? Is there anything you consider historically inaccurate? — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:50 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand either. Most of the sources are from highly accademic research by Professors in Assyriology and similar fields. Who are you Dab? Are you offended as a Jew or Christian that in the Ashurism article it states a possibility that maybe the old Testament is based on legends in Assyria and Babylonia and you felt that supressing history may prevent others from learning the other side of the story? Sharru Kinnu III 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He is removing them because he's an anti-nationalist. He has said before that this is "antiquity frenzy" (an article he created, watch out if he adds something about Assyrians in that article). That's an obvious Nazi comparison. He fears that this will lead to some sort of Assyrian Nazism or something. I don't know, but his behaviour is ridiculous. If you disagree with these academic scholars, perhaps you should start a historical debate with them, or something? But please, don't remove these sources, just because you have a biased anti-nationalist POV agenda. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:34 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, you have taken to quoting literally kilobytes of "sources" in footnotes, never mind if they are pertinent or not. I don't dispute you have "sources", I dispute that they belong here. Your allegation of "Nazi comparison" is nonsense and blatant Godwining. You, Elias, are a nationalistic edit-warrior, while I am a perfecly neutral editor. It is telling that you immediately speculate about my ulterior motives (you cannot understand somebody would spend time on Wikipedia simply for the purpose of improving Wikipedia). I have no agenda beyond cleaning up this article as one problem spot among many. I have no particular interest in Assyrians. You should finally take a step back and ask other neutral parties for input if you are unhappy about something. dab (𒁳) 21:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Elias, you have taken to quoting literally kilobytes of "sources" in footnotes, never mind if they are pertinent or not. — Is that not allowed? The reason why I'm quoting some material, is because the cite template allows this sort of functionality, and it's useful, for others to read the material and get a conception of why this and that source is being cited; it clears up misconceptions that way, and it saves some time for other readers to read through endless of material, when you can just cite the relevant point. This is not a reason for removing academic sources. Why are you removing other material? You are not neutral. Neutral my ass. This isn't about neutrality, it's about that you are biased and have an anti "antiquity frenzy" agenda, or something. Any connections with the ancient Assyrians, you're removing. Why? What business is this of yours? There's a consensus amongst several Assyriologists, that we have descended from these people. Why are you trying to suppress their studies? I'm not an "edit-warrior", I'm trying to improve this article, and I'm an inclusionist, not a deletionist. Why are you so keen and adamant on deleting scholarly sources? Please explain this to me. If you have no good reason for your deletions other than your typical anti-nationalist agenda, perhaps then it's you who should back off. Again, I ask you, please give one decent reason as to why you are removing scholarly sources. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:49 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Check mate. Sharru Kinnu III 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian Revert Wars

PLEASE STOP! I am calling on both sides to calm down and continue with dialogo before taking actions. Reverting back and forth doesn't achieve anything. If you want to make a significant change in the article (like deleting an entire section?) PLEASE inform us your reasons in the talk page before doing so. Chaldean 00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The intro should not contain its origins, only the clear, and accurate one. A short summary but not a whole section, no where in Wiki you will find this since it is not correctly formatted. Instead someone is adding the section to pursue propaganda advertising that Akkadians are Assyrian. --Vonones 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point and I agree. Anybody from the opposite side would like to comment? Chaldean 00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The intro should not contain its origins — Why not? It's an introduction, to explain a brief summary of our history. You can read the rest, in this article: History of the Assyrian people. Instead someone is adding the section to pursue propaganda advertising that Akkadians are Assyrian — It's not propagenda. The Assyrians were Akkadians, they just took their name after Ashur, a patron city god. They spoke Akkadian in the beginning. It's properly sourced. Also, you shouldn't delete properly sourced sections and call it "propaganda". Why do you think Sargon of Akkad's face depiction was found in Nineveh, and that Assyrian Kings, had names like Sargon I and Sargon II? This chart says it all. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:59 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Some examples of articles that have good headers and wiki style: Turkish people, Germans, Irish people you don't need to fill in the header with all that text, it should be short and very accurate, than elsewhere in the article we should start explaining the origins. --Vonones 01:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it is not even a question that Assyrians where the ruling class of the Akkad dynasty, but It's an introduction, to explain a brief summary of our history. - what is brief to you? I think 3 paragraphs (like the way Vonones had it) is pretty good IMO. Chaldean 01:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll restructure the order of the article in a couple of hours. No reverting or deleting until then. Deal? — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:24 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Why not create a sandbox? and edit from there. --Vonones 01:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes good idea. Talk:Assyrian people/Introduction edit it together until you guys agree on it and then put in the page. Chaldean 01:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not create a sandbox? and edit from there — What's wrong with the article as it is right now? Is there anything historically inaccurate, with the cited sources in mind? — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:30 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

No, but the intro is to be short and simple. It is currently long and complex. Chaldean 01:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's it, then it's not difficult to solve.[7][8] No need for sandbox. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:37 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. --Šarukinu 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

ܫܟܝܪܐ ܫܡܐ ܕܨܜܢܐ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.3.182 (talk • contribs)

Translation? — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:57 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. "Shkeera shima d'sitla" = "Praise the name of the bucket" ? --Šarukinu 15:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As in dump the sand out of the bucket the hell with the sandbox.

Assyrians are not Akkadians. Assyrians are Aramaens. we assimilated them into the Akkadian empire.Aramaic language supplanted the native Akkadian language. very proud assyrian [elias you know why ;)] Nochi 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrians are highlanders. Highlanders are Assyrian.

Assyrians are Assyrian.ܦܪܩܠܐ ܩܨܬ
-- ܫܪܘܟܝܢܘ

I'm a little confused - areAssyrians not suppose to be descended from the Akkadians? And I imagine that if they are, undoubtedly we have blood from other peopls such as aramaens. Tourskin 19:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

We also have lots of blood from the Sumerians too, since the Akkadians, took over Sumer, and the Assyrians, evolved from the Akkadians and the Sumerians (Sargon of Akkad, created a multi-ethnic Empire, the first of its kind). We also have blood from the Babylonians, since they were basically the same people as the Assyrians. So technically, calling ourselves Chaldeans, and Aramaeans, isn't that far off, but we should stick to one identity, since we are the 'orphaned product', of the Neo-Assyrian Empire; we have been stateless since then. Yes, we do have some Aramaean ancestors. That doesn't mean we are Aramaeans. The Aramaeans, never came that far. It's just their language, that spread around the entire Fertile Crescent, and it wasn't like they tried their damnedest to spread their language; it just happened to end up like that. Really though, Assyrians were simply children of the Akkadians. The reason why they started calling themselves Assyrians, is because they took it after the god they worshipped, Assur, and the name of the first capital city. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:27 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have wonderd for a while. why shud we call the Christians Neo-Aramic peoples fir Assyrians? not Chaldean or Syriac?. Assyrians (Nestorians) have fooled as. they have united us under thier name.. i am against this article and plaese help to create a Chandean people and Syriac people article...... why are we dominated? espiaslly the Chaldeans... modern aramic uses sero-jocabite script not madhya?? why?? can someone answer me its sad,,Nochi 20:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:07 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Just a confused Assyrian. Do you call yourself Souraya" in Sourteth? If so just stop already and accept this article. 75.46.3.182 00:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Nochi, ethnicity transcends religious and linguistic divides (although linguistic differences between Chaldean Catholic Assyrians, Church of the East Assyrians, and Syriac Orthodox Assyrians are minimal). --Šarukinu 01:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 11

Please consider rewording this sentence, which is part of footnote #11: They speak their own ancient language and their homeland is until now usurped by an Arab entity called Iraq. --Šarukinu 19:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it sounds odd but how do we change what someone or a source states? Tourskin 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is the truth. Why should we reword facts? You know, very well, that northern Iraq, historically, belongs to us. You shouldn't discredit what this source is stating about our ancient homeland. The Assyrian Empire, began in northern Iraq. Our homeland is occupied by Arabs. As politically incorrect as that sounds, it's the damned truth. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:12 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

As true as it is, in an encyclopedic article you have to eliminate all biased terminology, otherwise the article and its editors will lose credibility, and people will find the article to be very POV. Wikipedia has strong policies against POV, as far as I know. So perhaps we can work together to just lightly reword it so that the bias doesn't stare people in the face. I'm Assyrian, and very thankful to be one, and very proud of our people's achievements over the past dozens of centuries. However, what I strongly dislike is when we use flowery words to bolster our cause, even though what we need first and foremost is to raise awareness about the plight of the Assyrians. --Šarukinu 01:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not POV. Our homeland is de facto occupied by an Arab state, just like the Indians' homeland is occupied by a European state. There is nothing biased, POV, or whatever, by stating this fact. We have been stateless, occupied and persecuted by different peoples for 2600 years. I fail to see what your qualm with citing this obvious fact, comes from. Also, this is not even mentioned in the article per se, but in a source I've cited. What's wrong with that? — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:43 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

How many states have ruled over Assyrians? there is barely any left there since Kurds dominate them in the region, to Kurds it is native to them than we shall add that also. It falls under the category of Kurdistan. It is not occupied when was the last time Assyrians had there own established state the word occupied wasn't even invented yet it was so long ago. --Vonones 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Kurds have also persecuted Assyrians. The area is dominated by Kurds, because of this reason. Yes, they have occupied the region that is our ancestral homeland. But of course, the Kurds are allies to the United States, which means they are a good, honourable, and flawless people, incapable of doing anything wrong. — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:14 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Its not a well known fact you keep removing my tags im reporting you. --Vonones 04:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

How about looking up the article, Akkadian language, and see for yourself, that this language, was spoken by the ancient Assyrians? — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:10 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• The Arabs there are as related to ancient Assyrians as yourself, Elias, they're most likely just arabised modern Assyrians. Funkynusayri 05:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Not quite true. Though there are some ethnic relations between me and the Arabs from Iraq, they are not Assyrians. It's true that some Assyrians, were Arabaized. But far from all. The Arabs in Iraq, don't share the same DNA profile as the rest of us Assyrians. Also, I'm not an Assyrian from Iraq. One of my grandmothers, however, is an ethnic Assyrian from Iraq. Still, we are not Arabs. The Arabs in Iraq, are mostly Arabs, Kurds, Turks, and Persians. You have to understand, in the Middle East, religion is deeply intertwined with ethnicity. Arabs never became Christians. And Assyrians, rarely became Muslims. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:10 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

The majority of Assyrians are obviously Arab, they have mixed in with Arabs, Turks and Persians it is very unlikely you maintained your blood but you do not know anyway. --Vonones 05:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Assyrians are Semites, just like the Arabs are Semites. That is the only reason why they look like us, to some extent (we are much older than Arabs). Not because we have "mixed" with them, but because we are of the same race. It's like saying that Chinese and Japanese people are the same people, because they are of the same race. We haven't mixed with Arabs. You should read this. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:21 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

You talk like Assyrians are going to grow so much and get there own country eventually. Assyrians have not had land since Prehistoric times. They have mixed so much that they cannot relate anymore, they look like Arabs, Japanese and Chinese are not exactly the same while Assyrians look the same as Arabs. They are murdered daily in Iraq, Bush doesn't care because the Kurds will complain sadly they have assimilated Arab culture & blood. --Vonones 05:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is your opinion, or assertion, that we have mixed with Arabs. I personally couldn't care less about your opinions. As for our future, you Muslims can go ahead and kill us all you like, simply because we are Christians. In time, you will be judged by God for your sins. You are not martyrs for blowing yourselves up amongst Assyrians in Iraq. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:30 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• If most Assyrians didn't become Arabised, what happened to them then? They just disappeared? And where did all the Arabs come from? It is a well known fact that most countries that were Arabised didn't have their populations replaced by Arabs from South Arabia, the populations just started speaking Arabic. Otherwise North and South Arabs would look a like and be closely genetically related, which they aren't.

As for modern Assyrians being genetically distinct, that doesn't have to be explained by them being of different origins than their "Arab" neighbours, it simply means that they have married within their own group for a long time, perhaps since the other Assyrians were Arabised. The time passed since then would had been enough to make their collective genes distinct, simply because they would all be interrelated. I don't understand what you mean by Arabs never being Christians. Several pre-Islamic Arab groups were Christianised. I don't get why the majority of Assyrians should be Arabs either. Funkynusayri 05:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Some Assyrians were of course Arabised. That doesn't mean that all Arabs in Iraq today, are pure Assyrians. As for Arabs in Iraq not looking exactly like Arabs in Saudi Arabia, that's because they aren't real Arabs. They are Arab nationalist, and their gene pool is derived from several peoples beside Arabic peoples, like Iranian peoples; Kurds and Persians, Turks, and to some extent, Assyrians. It doesn't mean that the rest of us Assyrians, have 50% Arab blood. We did not marry with Arabs. We fled to the mountains and isolated us from Muslim invaders. Nice try, but we are not Arabs, and the "Arabs" in Iraq, are far from being pure Assyrians. If most Assyrians didn't become Arabised, what happened to them then? They just disappeared? — I told you, read this. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:34 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
  • • Also the Prehistoric comment is a joke. The country part was in response to your "occupy" comments, Mr. EliasAlucarda --Vonones 05:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah whatever. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:34 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Vonones, you need to spruce up your sense of humour, that joke was as offensive as it was lame. My friend, we have a right to preserve our culture like every other ethnic group in this world. And if you had even a basic understanding of Assyrian culture, you would know that intermarriage with other groups is highly shunned among Assyrians, as has always been the case, thus our bloodline is most likely highly Assyrian. It's quite possible many of us have some Persian/Turkish/Arab blood in us, but that's to a limited degree, and very uncertain. Anybody marrying an Assyrian would have had to convert (if not already Christian), or the other way around. For a long time, even until today, religion was intertwined with ethnicity, as Elias mentioned.
Elias, the word "usurped" does not belong unless you're talking about somebody usurping a king's throne - otherwise, as in the case of the Assyrian homeland, it's very POV (even though it's true). In stead of "usurped", say "occupied" or "inhabited by force", or something along those lines (which are not perfect alternatives, but still better than "usurped" - you see what I mean?). For once aziza just step back and look at the topic objectively. The fact that biased terminology is in a footnote doesn't make it ok to include it. We have to be objective for anybody to take us seriously. --Šarukinu 05:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My friend, we have a right to preserve our culture like every other ethnic group in this world. — Not according to Muslims. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:28 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• That article doesn't contradict, but rather confirm my claims, Elias: "assimilation and "Arabization" into majority cultures". It can't be clarified to what extend they were Arabised without proper genetic tests though. This of course doesn't mean that the people who call themselves today are Arabs, I don't see how anyone would come to this conclusion, it just means that their surrounding non-Assyrian neighbours were originally Assyrians. Funkynusayri 05:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Funkynusayri, this is you Nowhere in the previous article, does it say that we are Arabs. Nor does it say, that we have mixed with Arabs. Šarukinu, I don't think you understand. I just cited a source, that claims, our ancestral homeland, is usurped by an Arab entity called Iraq. It is not written in the main article, but it is being cited. Hence, it cannot be POV. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:43 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Agh, you're still misunderstanding what I'm saying. What I meant: Many Iraqi Arabs are of Assyrian origins, not the other way around. It was Vonones who claimed Assyrians were Arabs, not me. Funkynusayri 05:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't denied that Iraqi Arabs are of Assyrian origins. But this, is clearly being exaggerated. Yes, the Iraqi Arabs do have Assyrian ancestors, to some extent. Doesn't mean they qualify as Assyrians. At most, they are of 10% Assyrian origins, and that's a generous estimation. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:54 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• Well, how do you know? And what do you mean by 10%? That 10% of them have Assyrian ancestry, or that individuals are 10% Assyrian on average? Funkynusayri 06:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Look, it is just not common, that we marry Arabs. Just take my word for it. It has happened once in a while, but 99% of the cases, we stick to marrying our own people, because Christianity is a very important part of our culture (I can't emphasize enough how important Christianity is for us as a people). My guess is that individual Iraqi Arabs have 10% Assyrian ancestry, at most, 20%. But I don't think it goes beyond 10%. The only reason why we resemble Arabs, is because we are Semites too. We look exactly like the Mizrahi Jews. That doesn't mean we are Mizrahi Jews. — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:18 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Talking about Jews.. I need help at Arab Jews talk page its talk about Assyrians Nochi 09:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about marrying Arabs, but about becoming Arabs. All you have to do is talk Arabic and maybe convert to Islam to get accepted by the other Arabs. I can imagine entire Assyrian villages having done this in the past, and this article also hints at that. These "Arabs" would then be 100% Assyrian ancestrally, but now considered as Arabs by everyone around them. Funkynusayri 10:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Funkynusayri, how can we guess or assume that entire Assyrian villages suddenly adopted the Arabic identity all at once? Something like that would require a major change implemented in the local church, as it was usually the center and main socializing institution of the community. Even to this day in the diaspora, the Church is one of the most (if not the most) important socializing institutions in Assyrian communities around the world. So for an entire village to suddenly convert is unlikely. One possibility is that the village is converted by force, whereby all those who don't convert are killed off, and the religious leaders are either exhiled or killed as well. Something so drastic would require a huge invading force, which would possibly dilute the Assyrian population to some degree. Long story short: an entire village converting or becoming "Arab" is unlikely, unless of course by force.
    Many Iraqi "Arabs" do look very Assyrian, or "Mesopotamian". But there's one thing you should consider: these "Arabized" Assyrians, especially those that converted to Islam, would be more likely to intermarry with the Muslim Arab population than the Christian Assyrians would. Back then, marriage was more controlled by the parents, and "arranged marriages" were much more common than today, even among Assyrians. --Šarukinu 18:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha my friend, Elias, POV is everywhere, not just in the articles we create. For example, AINA.org and Nineveh.com are arguably very biased, and of course it's expected. Yes, that line is a quote from a cited source (which you can edit using square brackets), and although Iraq has been "usurped" by Arabs, so have North and South America been "usurped" by the Europeans, but still you don't see real scholars using terms such as "usurped" when referring to these modern states. Basically what I'm trying to say is that perhaps this source is not reliable - any detectable bias reduces credibility. Wouldn't you agree? --Šarukinu 18:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I still fail to see your problem with the word usurp. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:42 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Entire villages did not convert to Islam. They were, just like, Šarukinu explains above, either killed, or perhaps a few Assyrians converted, and later mixed and assimilated with their new Arab Muslim friends. The reason why we have so many victims and genocides, is because we have resisted Islam so much (not with violence). Do you know how Islam works? They first offer you Dawah (invitation to Islam), if you don't accept this, they offer you the Jizya and you can keep your religion under very restricted circumstances (very high tax money for non-Muslims, apartheid-Dhimmitude, etc.), if you don't accept this, it's Jihad until you either get killed, or convert to Islam (if you think I'm making this up, read this). Dawah, of course, is not and have never been an option for us. Most of us accepted Jizya, and if we couldn't afford the Jizya, it was death, because we refused to abandon Jesus and Christianity. Yes, a few of us, have converted to Islam in the past, but that's a minority. Most of us either got killed, or survived, as a decimated group of Assyrians. The reason why we are so few today, is not because most Assyrians became Iraqi Arabs, but because we have been murdered for centuries. You should perhaps read about the Assyrian Genocide and the Simele massacre. One thing you should know about us, is that we have been killed for believing in Jesus Christ. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:42 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

You've had one Genocide, not genocides. --Vonones 21:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we've had something like over 30 genocides. Perhaps you should check out what that peaceful Muslim Timur did with Nestorian Assyrians. The Assyrian genocide of 1915 was only one recent genocide in modern times. There is also an ongoing Assyrian genocide in Iraq as we speak.[9] But it's nice to know that you at the very least, acknowledge 1 Assyrian genocide. Now you still got 30 or something left, to recognize. Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:29 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Those are Genocide claims, anyway I blame bush for the killing of Assyrians, he knows it the Pope told him yet he ignorantly ignores it. Just like in Africa, disgusting thank god he is leaving in a few. --Vonones 21:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There are also Assyrian genocides' denials. You can deny it all you like; doesn't make it more innocent and it sure doesn't acquit anyone of the murder of our people. Blaming the murdering of Assyrians in Iraq all on Bush, is of course, an easy way out, and a logical fallacy. It is not Bush's fault, because Muslims are so peaceful and murdering Assyrians, decapitating the heads of Assyrian priests, and crucifying Assyrian children and raping Assyrian women, all the while, shrieking allahu akbar whilst doing this. This is all, the doing of Muslim Arabs. Though Bush is partially to blame for ignoring it, he is not guilty for anyone else's crimes. As for the Pope, he has opposed Assyrian independence, so he's not exactly better than Bush. And that's coming from a Catholic Assyrian. You only forgot to blame it on the malicious Jews while you where still at it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:29 06 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Assyrians are not going to get a homeland you can keep hoping for it. Kurds have more power and are more important to Bush and many Americans who have power. Bush can stop the killings, while the pope cannot he has raised awareness. --Vonones 22:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you constantly mentioning Kurds in all this? Are you a Kurd? And why are you opposed to Assyrian independence? — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:22 06 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I am not a Kurd. I am not opposing there independence, I am saying what is the truth. --Vonones 08:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the truth: In Iraq, there will be absolutely no Assyrians left. We will completely be eradicated from our own ancestral homeland, by extremely peaceful Muslims. In time, let's say, 100, 200, maybe 1000 years from now (if the world is still around for that long and hasn't been destroyed by nukes or God, or something), we will take back what's rightfully ours. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:31 06 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

this is Wikipedia guys. Take your discussion to email, a public forum, or at least to user space. dab (𒁳) 11:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

and for pity's sake don't waste time discussing "sources" that turn out to be random web pages. WP:RS isn't some inside joke of pedantic Wikipedians. Cite academic sources, or if you don't have any, go to a library and come back once you do. dab (𒁳) 11:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Elias, stop be such radicalist, u make it soud that assyrians are hungry for revange and power. its wrong we are peaful christians, i have never heard that muslims raped asssyrian womans`??. Nochi 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so naive Nochi. I have relatives in Iraq that were killed by muslims and one was a woman that was raped to where she wanted to kill her self. Sharru Kinnu III 16:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My mother's family was going to be slaughtered by Turks when French missionaries arrived in the northern mountains of Iraq to stop them by diplomatic threats. Enough said? Anyways no cares about anyone's relatives or family or raping, if it happens, it happens and those who deny it look like stupid people. Isn't the point of this discussion to go over foot note 11? Another point, If Assyriasn weren't raped, killed etc, how the hell do they become a minority in a land which was once their homeland? Hmm? Did they use ultra sophisticated birth control?? Tourskin 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Akkadian and Ashurism

• I am still waiting for Akkadian and Ashurism to be removed from the info box. It just doesn't belong their. Can we please vote on this?

• Remove Chaldean 13:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please specify why you want them removed? I mean, elaborate why. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:30 06 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Because the infobox is meant for current info, not historical. Why not write the population in Iraq from 1930? 1800? Where does it stop? Look at any other ethnic info box - Irish people, Armenians, Russian people. Chaldean 14:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Jew article has several historical Jewish languages. Jews have however, only had one religion, so only Judaism is listed. I don't see the problem. In fact, I think it's perfect as it is right now. I think it's important that we list Ashurism and Akkadian, so that people can read more about this old school religion and language. But I am an inclusionist. Is there any other reason why you want them removed? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:44 06 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

For the second time, you can't compare this to the Jews. The Jewish topic is that of a different matter then this one. I think its important that we list Ashurism and Akkadian, so that people can read more about this old school religion and language. - they do that in the History of the Assyrian people page - not in the infobox. I mean its common sense, really. Chaldean 14:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, people interested in the Assyrian Empire can go and read our article Assyrian Empire, and editors interested in the topic can go and work on the Assyrian Empire, what on earth is controversial about this? Avoid article scope overlap whenever at all possible. dab (𒁳) 16:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chaldean and Dbachmann on this one. The article Assyrian people is concerned with the modern people, and although it is important to briefly list their history, the ancient aspects of these people does not belong in an infobox about their ancestors. We can list Ashurism and Akkadian in the infobox on the History of the Assyrian people article. I have no problem whatsoever. My vote: Remove.--Šarukinu 19:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the current version, in which teh infobox does not show the older religions but nonetheless the history section does mention briefly about our older times so its linked from there. Tourskin 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

per Garzo's talk page about Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs

I say it's time to split the articles and on each article explain the movements to unite and the different nationalistic movements. Explain the Chaldean perspective. Explain the Syriac perspective and the Aramaean movement. Explain the Assyrian perpective and Assyrian nationlism. The uniting article should be Syriac Christianity. What I'm getting at is that each perspective on why they feel they are that group should be thoroughly explained as well as the opposing groups counter to that claim and in the end explain that ultimately they are united by more similarites than differences. There are countless perspectives on this issue. Many feel that they are all of these people merged. Some feel connected to one and not the other. And some are blatant ultra-nationalists. Sharru Kinnu III 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We can explain them but we DONT need a 10 different articles. Garzo also supports the idea of not having all these different pages. I have suggested to Benne (an Aramean perspective supporter) to start on a page [[10]] that you have described (Chaldean perspective, etc) and the page should be Syriacs. This page right here [[11]] shall the be the draft. Work on it together and get the two Chaldeans in who are also discussing this on the Chaldean Assyrians page to come to the page and create something. By the way, what do you think of this [[12]] Chaldean 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, I like it. Sharru Kinnu III 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Assyrian" or Aramaen?

does anybody have enough knowlegde about "Assyrian peope"? well if Yes. i Guess u shud know that Syriacs call them selfs for Syriani as religion and ethnic and Assyrian means followers of eastern church. Chaldeans are not Assyrians. Syriacs acall us taht because we are east for syria and majority of IRaqi cheristians was Nestorians. Nochi 22:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have alot of proves just see the language "Assyrian neo aramaic" its for Nestorians. look its name? ASSYRIAN. why shud that name diominate. too bee honest we belive we are from acient assyrians because iof the name Assyrian? but no its for a church name and same for Chaldean people thinks we are acient babylonians. its a CHURCh name. i think correct for this are Aramaens. i think we where Aramaens. we speak the language. i think it shud be "Aramaen people". thats more logical or not?? Nochi 23:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nochi you are the poster boy for how confused our people are. Chaldean 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll make this simple. Suraya sounds like Chaldean: FALSE, Suraya sounds like Aramean: FALSE, Suraya sounds like Syrian: DING DING DING WE have ourselves a WINNER!!! The correct answer was SYRIAN which if we go back a long time was derived from: you guessed it! ASSYRIAN!!! YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs)

That is correct. I find it amazing that Syriacs can't figure this out by themselves. Even when you tell them, they don't believe it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:40 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Im serious guys, u must know that "Assyrian people" don't consider themselfs assyrians. beacuse its a church name like chaldean. i ahve crteated an article Aramaean people please check it out and tell me whats wrong and corect thanks. Nochi 06:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nochi, please stop trolling, we are Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:52 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Nochi is a troll

It appears that Nochi is trolling. How long is thing going to be tolerated? — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:28 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

No government body in this world recognizes "Aramean" as an ethnic group. Nochi is just growing and is at that stage of his life where he is trying everything. He was Assyrian last week and he is Aramean today? What will he be next week, an Arab? Enough of this. Chaldean 12:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nochi is way out of line. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:11 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I just increased the protection of this article so that only admins may edit it for a week. There have been over fifty edits today, which mostly have been back and forth nonsense. Elias and Nochi are locked in argument that produces more heat than light, and I'm not just going to sit here and watch it. Without shouting or ranting, I would like to hear how the article should be improved. Is it a pipe-dream to think that we could achieve an consensus in a week? — Gareth Hughes 17:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nochi is a troll. He is not here to improve anything. You should investigate this. As for the article, we can improve it, if you decide to stick to citing Assyriologists and serious scholars. Of course, that would mean, that we have to label the Syriacs and the Chaldeans as Assyrians too, which you for some reason oppose. Remember, in your own words: Ancient Assyrian religion is the preserve of Assyriologists, anything else is amateur writing. — That applies on the Assyrian people as well. So, what do you say? — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:31 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

This was exactly the thing I asked that we don't have: you call another user a 'troll' and then read my own words back to me, out of context, to piss me off. This kind of approach just makes things worse. Let's have a discussion, point by point, and realise that we all want a better article. — Gareth Hughes 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I am not trying to piss you off. It's just that you are dubious. On one article, you want to refer to Assyriologist. On another related article, you don't want to cite Assyriologist, if it tends to upset misguided Assyrians in the illusion that they are Aramaeans or Neo-Babylonians. Come on? Don't you see the fallacy in that? Look, we can solve this by citing modern, contemporary research. Simo Parpola, is probably the best Assyriologist there is as far as our history as a people is concerned. As for Nochi, have you even bothered to check what he's been up to today? Never mind you and me, and our disputes. Just look at his edits. Anyone in his right mind wouldn't take him seriously. He's not here to write Encyclopaedic content. He's just here to screw around with articles. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:08 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what Nochi did, and I won't call him a troll but if we're using correct sources and someone isn't, there is no argument about it - Simo parpola is a good assyriologist - although its not great to rely on one source, its infintely better to do so than to have no sources or poor / "amatuer" sources. Tourskin 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nochi just got block,[13] with good reason. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:38 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

You reverted 8 times you deserve a block also. --Vonones 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because he was removing NPOV tags I added. So technically, I'm not guilty. That "article", was a joke from the beginning. It started out as a trolling article. Please, 3 million Aramaeans? Give me a break. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:01 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules and you don't make them, you have to abide them or you get blocked. --Vonones 20:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So anyway, you want to discuss this article, or WP:3RR? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:51 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I don't care anything is fine. --Vonones 21:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Elias, can you please desist from cluttering articles with your ridiculously lengthy footnotes? Assyrians aren't referred to as "Chaldeans", only the subgroup adhering to the Chaldean Church is, and your citing half of Parpola's essay doesn't change that fact, it just makes it more difficult to see through what you are trying to prove. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrians aren't referred to as "Chaldeans" — Yes they are. only the subgroup adhering to the Chaldean Church is — This subgroup, consists of Assyrians, being called "Chaldeans". It is in actuality, a misnomer. Anyway, what is your problem with the lengthy footnotes? — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:45 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Please add this in Admin

{{editprotected}} Add a link to the Assyrian Army under the History section like this:

See also: Assyrian Army

This is a neutral edit not involved in teh above war. I need this link so that the assyrian army article is not an orphan anymore.Tourskin 22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that article is appropriate here, as this deals mainly with modern Assyrians. I've added the link to History of the Assyrian people and Assyria. — Gareth Hughes 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I guess if the debate involves whether or not modern and ancient are related thats a fair point. Tourskin 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article must be deleted or re-named "Chaldo-Assyrian Syracs". since this article's name are using a Nestorian church name (Assyria). CHaldeans and Syriacs does not indifiy themselfs as Assyrians. only Nestorians so why shud this name be propogandic?` Nochi 19:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously, stop typing like an illiterate. You should knock it off with your trolling. Here you showed that you are capable of writing decent. Why are you trolling? Someone ban this troll. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:02 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

The title of this article suggests that it deals with the people who identify themselves as Assyrians, but its contents try to make readers believe that it actually encompasses all Syriacs. The very title is partial. Therefore, I suggest moving the information about those Syriacs who identify themselves as Aramaeans, Chaldaeans, and/or Syriacs from this article to separate articles. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 19:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This article deals with the Assyrian people. This may be difficult for you to understand, but you call yourself Assyrian every single day when you say that you are a Suryoyo. In the Middle East, Syriacs don't call themselves "Aramaean". My mother, who's a Syriac Orthodox, has never told me that she's an Aramaean, and she doesn't care about some Assyrian identity either. This Aramaean crap, is just sectarian thinking, amongst a few thousand obscure Syriacs in Sweden and Germany. The majority of Syriacs, don't call themselves "Aramaean". No, we don't need to move anything. You just have to accept historical facts; not historical revisionism from your Church. Stop causing trouble Benne, and accept our history. If you have a problem with academic sources, that is your problem, and Wikipedia doesn't bow down to Aramaye censorship and Aramaya sensitivity. If you have top notch serious academics who say you are a racially pure Aramaean, you are very welcome to bring their notable opinions into these articles. "Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis", is not a scholar, and you should stop listening to his brainwashing of our people. If anyone isn't neutral here, then it's you. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:54 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Megalommatis is a psychopath. He claims Kurds aren't even an ethnic group. He is a Ultra-Kemalist Turk that is obsessed with Aramaean revisionism. Sharru Kinnu III 20:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, he has a political agenda to divide and rule us. Some Syriacs, like Benne, just don't get it, and swallow everything he says. Didn't he deny the Armenian Genocide recently too? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:13 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Of course he is a Turk bent on destroying the Assyrian nation just like the Young Turks. He claims it was an unfortunate consequence of the fall of the Ottoman empire and blames attrocities that were committed solely on the Kurds whom at the same time he claims don't really exist. The Kurds were under the authority of the Ottoman generals though there were also bandits involved in raiding the fleeing Christians the majority of crimes were committed by the Turks. Read more in the Armenian article on the genocide. God bless the Armenians that hunted down the criminals responsible for organizing the Satanic acts committed against our people and the Christians that once lived and prospered in the ancient lands of Assyria, Armenia, and Anatolia. Sharru Kinnu III 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have prove that "assyrians" are the decentants of acient Assyria. u are agresive editor who uses shitty sources to prove it. "assyrians" self arnt sure if they are from acient Assyrians. i have alot of proves that this term are from teh dominated Nestorians. Nochi 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bassa min khmaroothoukh. Hot mbayoneh l'Ba`thayeh ou Tourkayeh. Ana ma makhkyathela? Scholars from highly prized institutions are not "shitty" sources. Turks bent on our destruction are. Sharru Kinnu III 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm getting the feeling that Nochi is some kind of Turk or Kurd, screwing around with us and trying to further cause disruption with these lies. Who knows, he could probably be Megalommatis himself. We shouldn't underestimate them; they know a lot about us, and they are bribing some of our Churches telling them to spread lies. That sounds like a conspiracy, but unfortunately, that's what's going on. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:35 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Nochi, in all seriousness are you mentally challenged? I'm not being offensive but are you even Souraya? Do you know what Nestorian means? First of all it is derogitory. Second of all it is a name given to followers of Nestorious which the Assyrian church claims they weren't. They only granted him protection. The Assyrian church traces it's teachings to Babai the Great. Another thing is I can't see how you can be a legit editor when just last week you were ranting on about your Assyrianess. Did you read some new articles on the internet all of a sudden that challenged your belief on your identity. You know for someone to change their beliefs especially on their identity within a week is like you openly stating your confusion. Please refrain from your nonsense. Sharru Kinnu III 20:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He is not an Assyrian, Syriac or Chaldean. He is a troll. Look at his stub here and how he writes without any serious spelling or grammar errors. He is doing this on purpose, trolling around, and some users are taking him seriously. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:33 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

i am a turk because i refuse to let Nestorians domitae me? (: Nochi 20:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're so ignorant dude. I'm Chaldean Catholic though I know I'm Assyrian by ethnicity. Nestorian is a derogitory term if you have a clue as to what that means. Aqla b' assassoukh. Sharru Kinnu III 20:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

pLese dont do any personal attacks. if you belive im wrong then explain to me im willing to listen. rather than making perosanl attacks. Nochi 20:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Aššūrāyu not Ashuraya

That timeline needs to be fixed if you wish to keep an alternate designation in parenthesis. Sharru Kinnu III 20:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)