Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Incompleted edit summary

Hi Nathan Annick, the source is a translated page of this site www.gks.ru which is a solid source because it's the official website of Russian Federal State Statistics Service. Sorry for the incompleted edit summary. I accidentally clicked publish while typing.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. But I think the link is dead. Nathan Annick (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I have added the original source without Google translation.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Good job. Nathan Annick (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Semitic people

"Semitic people" continues to be reintroduced into this article when it is NOT considered a real classification of people. It is highly inappropriate to keep insisting so for a particular population and not reciprocating it to people of other language families (i.e. Indo-European, Altaic, Finnic, etc speakers). What is the argument for it to keep reappearing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coronadarc (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It is an ethnolinguistic description like Turkic, Germanic, Slavic, Iranic, etc. and similar ethnolinguistic descriptions are used in other Wikipedia articles as well. See Germans, Russians, Persians, Turkish people...It was already explained before. This thread is WP:IDHT and wastes the community's time. Puduḫepa 19:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Other languages spoken by Assyrians

Assyrians speak Assyrian/Syrian (Aramaic). As can be seen from the population locations, Assyrians would need to know multiple languages for the purpose of communication in various societies. Aside from Assyrian/Syrian, the next most common language for Assyrians is in fact English. That does NOT mean Assyrians are English-speakers or should have it listed there. Neither does it mean Turkish, French, Arabic, Persian, Russian, Swedish, nor any other foreign language should be listed there either when these are not the indigenous language of the population nor retained upon immigration to other states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coronadarc (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Kurdish propaganda

Why are these sections on the Assyrian people page?

"In northern Syria, Assyrian groups have been taking part both politically and militarily in the Kurdish-dominated but multiethnic Syrian Democratic Forces and Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. "

"The Dawronoye modernization movement has a growing influence on Assyrian identity in the 21st century.[112] It is particularly influential in Syria, where the Syriac Union Party (SUP) has become a major political actor in the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. In August 2016, the Ourhi Centre in the city of Zalin was started by the Assyrian community, to educate teachers in order to make Syriac an optional language of instruction in public schools,[113][114] which then started with the 2016/17 academic year.[115] With that academic year, states the Rojava Education Committee, "three curriculums have replaced the old one, to include teaching in three languages: Kurdish, Arabic and Assyrian."[116] Associated with the SUP is the Syriac Military Council, an Assyrian militia operating in Syria, established in January 2013 to protect and stand up for the national rights of Assyrians in Syria as well as working together with the other communities in Syria to change the current government of Bashar al-Assad.[117] Since 2015 it is a component of the Syrian Democratic Forces. "

This is pure Kurdish / Dawronoye propaganda. In fact, the majority of Assyrians in Syria are NOT in favour of the SDF, and the dawronoye organization is heavily critized by all Assyrian federations, globally. So why is this still here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemliganonym (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no lie in the sentence. Khabour Guards and Sutoro are part of the Syrian Democratic Forces and I have linked to Rojava#Politics which clearly states that Assyrian parties take part in the administration of the region. Does the sentence state 'all Assyrians'? No, of course not. --Semsurî (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

There is an insinuation in that sentence that Assyrians as a whole support the SDF. In fact, both the dowronoye linked "Sutoro" and the "Khabour Guards" are miniscule organizations. The legitimate Sootoro does NOT support the SDF and have been in skrimishes with the Asayish on multiple occasions. That sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the Wiki page "Assyrian people" and should be removed promptly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemliganonym (talk • contribs) 09:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

17:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)~

how do i report racism in wikipedia articles against my people the Arameans? There are several articles in wikipedia where Arameans are called Assyrians, and that Arameans / Syriacs are Assyrians in your articles. This untrue and is clearly racism against my people. We Arameans have had to experience genocide, persecution, now our name is also threatened to disappear. This is only one article of many in wikipedia where Arameans and Aramaic flags are swept away, instead we are refered as Assyrians.

Best regards

I totally agree with this, multiple times there have been Arameans on this page who argued this issue. The Assyrian propaganda has to stop! Assyrians need to stop changing everything what's Aramean into Assyrian. Even persons who identify as Arameans are being changed to 'Assyrian' such as David Teymur or Shamoun Hanna Haydo.

I recommend a page about the Aramean people, called Arameans (Syriacs), the Arameans and Assyrians have a different history, culture and language. So please, is there a way to make a page for the Aramean people?

Thanks in advance.

MixedButHumann (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Diaspora vs Homeland

On the infobox Jordan is listed in diaspora section, but shouldn't it be part of their "homeland"? Definitely as much as Syria is, considering Jordan is just southern Syria. Opinions?Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Nameconflict

Hi all,

I’m an outsider of the Assyrian-Aramean nation, but although I am someone who is interested in their history, culture etc. I enjoy reading about it, but I consider a lot of pages on the English Wikipedia as ‘Assyrian nationalism’ and POV. Lots of articles going about Arameans or people who identify as Arameans are being changed to Assyrian.

This case got my attention so I wanted to do a research on it. While doing my research I found groups on Reddit and Facebook including 2000+ Assyrian nationalist calling up every Assyrian to edit the pages of Arameans into Assyrians and keep pushing the Assyrian cause.

I’m really concerned about the situation of Assyrians attacking the Aramean identity and deleting their history and culture. Entire pages about cities, people and churches are being changed in the Assyrian name.

This case that can be labeled as a real ‘problem’ is unfair to the Arameans who are struggling for their survival.

Therefore I want to see a solution for the ongoing Assyrian nationalism and POV on Wikipedia pages.

MixedButHumann (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi MixedButHumann - welcome to Wikipedia. Please make yourself acquainted with Wikipedia's policies. In this case I suggest that you start with WP:COMMONNAME. Assyrian is the common name for the people described in this articles, which further elaborates on the different identities. Shmayo (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

On which sources do you base ‘Assyrian’ to be the most common name?

I suppose you to be an Assyrian as well, according to your name. This is exactly what Wikipedia needs to avoid. Nationalists like you who look at it from a POV!

MixedButHumann (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You could start of with reading the policy. Then take a look in the talk page archive and search for discussions related to the article name - all your questions above will be answered. Refrain from editing with emotions and calling out WP:VANDALISM. Shmayo (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

MixedButHumann you will not get any sources from most of the people here. the page is a mess due to the negligence of the wiki admins. Sr 76 (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

MixedButHumann I noticed this too. They are changing Aramaean to Assyrian and Arab to Nabataean even when the sources explicitly use the former labels. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

aramean vs assyrian?

Hi, l myself is syriac, i propose to change the name to syriac people because this name have been used for eternity by the community. Can someone please discuss with me why we should call ourselves assyrians and not arameans, and if you can be open minded and neutral, l would be happy. I have read ancient assyrian and aramean history until modern syriacs and one side say they lie and the other side say he lie, it is going nowhere, why cant we just accept that we are both aramean and assyrian, both people where called syrians by the west, to just accept assyrian history for me, isnt right. we should accept both history, it would please the other side too. There are just difference between the two before the neo assyrian empire conquered the last aramean kingdom, but after the fall of assyria we really have the same history, we both claim osroene as syriac and adiabene, and until modern history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

So my scripts have flagged many sources such as academia.edu as possibly predatory or unreliable sources. We need to be careful citing journals that come from disreputable repositories because they cannot be trusted as WP:RS. These need careful scrutiny to determine yea or nay. There are a few other that I shall remove shortly. Elizium23 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Name controversy

I came across pages about Syriac Christians and mentioned that there is a heavily ongoing name controversy within their community. I also mentioned that the term Assyrian is not the universial or general accepted name among these Syriac Christians.

Are there any Wiki-rules we need to follow or is it better to describe these groups apart from eachother as Assyrians and Arameans. Maybe you know more about this user:Elizium23?

Reldex (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Reldex, I am currently deferring to @Sorabino: as the expert and neutral editor in this field. Anything that contradicts his editing, I typically consider incorrect. Elizium23 (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I see, I was aware of Sorabino's great contributions to these pages and already did send him a message on his talkpage. Is there a possibility to make like regular guidelines to follow regarding edits on these pages? I also came across Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac Wikipedia cooperation board so it's a discussion that actually already exists more than 10 years. Isn't it better to rename one this page for both modern Arameans and Assyrians with a backslash Arameans/Assyrians and two seperate pages about the ancient history of these people namely Assyria and Arameans. Or maybe to create for both groups 2 apart pages about their modern identity and refer to both with a backslash on pages regarding these people since there are some aspects in which they differ from eachother. What do you think user:Sorabino? Reldex (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank′s very much, to both of you. As you all know, those questions are very complex and sensitive. Some of the most contentious issues regarding modern identities, both Aramean and Assyrian, have been discussed many times, without reaching any true consensus. During recurring discussions, editorial community and wider public in general was often faced with two opposite, and mutually conflicting views:

• radical "pan-Aramean" view, advocated by those who claim that all modern communities of Aramaic-speaking Christians are descended from ancient Arameans, thus denying any ethnic connection with ancient Assyrians.
• radical "pan-Assyrian" view, advocated by those who claim that all modern communities of Aramaic-speaking Christians are descended from ancient Assyrians, thus denying any ethnic connection with ancient Arameans.

Those radical views are advocated by certain organizations on both sides, and such views are also supported by various researches, including some scholars.

Fortunately, there are also some moderate views:

• moderate Aramean view, advocated by those who claim that among modern communities of Aramaic-speaking Christians, only some are descended from ancient Arameans, thus allowing that other may be descended from ancient Assyrians.
• moderate Assyrian view, advocated by those who claim that among modern communities of Aramaic-speaking Christians, only some are descended from ancient Assyrians, thus allowing that other may be descended from ancient Arameans.

It is my impression that majority of scholars are supporting moderate views, thus acknowledging that both communities (modern Arameans and modern Assyrians) have legitimate claims, each in their own domain. Therefore, we can only hope that majority of editors will also be guided by moderate and positive attitudes, while improving articles and contents in their own domains of interest. To much time and energy was spent on mutual denialism. Creative energy should be invested in development of content related to both communities, and in time we will be able to implement systematic and durable solutions for all articles related to Arameans and Assyrians, both ancient and modern. Sorabino (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Reldex: In general, Wikipedia articles generally should only have one name. Wikipedia:Article titles is the relevant policy to follow there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this quite interesting name controversy, especially since both Arameans and Assyrians are stateless nations. I would like to contribute to these articles as well and as far as I understood we need to invest energy in both articles about ancient and modern Assyrians/Arameans. user:Sorabino would you recommend the page Arameans to include more information about the current modern situation of the group, since it doesn't include any new information after their converting from the pagan religion to christianity?Reldex (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

User:MJL I' am aware of that however the article Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden also include both names of the group. So I think in this case it isn't totally wrong to include both names in such articles. What do you think? Reldex (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a section, in the article on Arameans, currently called: Legacy and modern Aramean identity. Since we do not have a separate article on modern Arameans, general content related to them can be added there. More specific issues, related to modern disputes over terminology, can be added to the article Terms for Syriac Christians, in section on Aramean identity. Regarding the other question, related to articles on diaspora communities in various countries, it should be noted that (in some countries) modern Arameans and modern Assyrians are viewed and recognized as distinctive communities, and that situation is reflected in organization of Wikipedia articles. For example, German Wikipedia has separate articles on modern Arameans and modern Assyrians. Similar solutions are also applied in some other Wikipedias, but in general - all of those issues are still contended and frequently disputed. Here on English Wikipedia, we do not have a general consensus on those issues, and therefore it is best to focus on content development, based on adding material that is scholarly referenced, and in time other issues might be resolved too, hopefully. Sorabino (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Reldex: I would say the more proper term for the article's title would be Assyrians and Syriacs in Sweden if we are to say these are two distinct groups as Sorabino contends. However, I do know there are long time editors who take the position that take the position this is just one group with two (or sometimes more) identities (Perhaps Mugsalot could weigh in there). I might consider writing a successor to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac) (Maybe called Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Syria) or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Syriac-related articles) that could provide just a singular location for a potential consensus to emerge. There certainly needs to be a venue at the very least where this can get hashed out if you ask me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@MJL:, I am afraid that you misunderstood me, since I did not propose any such thing. If we are now talking about Assyrians in Sweden, it is clear that article on that community should be called Assyrians in Sweden, and it should be focused only on that community, while other communities, that do not self-identify as Assyrian, could be treated in separate articles. Modern Assyrians, both in homeland and throughout diaspora, have a very well established identity, recognized on the highest constitutional level since 2005 (in Iraq), and there is no need for any additional designation in titles of articles related to them. But also, articles on Assyrians should not be used for suppression of articles on other communities, that do not self-identify as Assyrian. Each to their own. Sorabino (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sorabino: At least in the case for Sweden, I'm pretty sure WP:AND applies. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@MJL:, it all depends how the "Syriac" designation is defined, since it can also be a linguistic or denominational designation. If it is used in title as addition to Assyrian designation, that construction would mean that the article in question is dedicated to two distinctive ethnic communities: Assyrians and Syriacs. It is true that some communities do advocate a particular Syriac identity, distinctive from both Assyrian and Aramean identities, but that is another complex issue, that would place great challenges innfront of editors. Sorabino (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

MJL, if I had a quid for every time I have had to respond to a new pro-Aramean user, who will inevitably be revealed as a sockpuppet (note the last sockpuppet investigation), then I'd be a rich man. I refuse to repeat myself like a broken record as new users with pre-existing beliefs will argue until the cows come home in spite of immense academic evidence that Assyrians, Arameans, Chaldeans, and Syriacs are the same ethnic group, as acknowledged by governments, ethnic organisations, churches, and academics alike.

In an ideal world, I would be immensely grateful for an updated naming convention whereby Assyrian is recognised as the sole umbrella term so we can stop this incessant argument with new users, most of whom contribute no actual content. For evidence that I provided last year, please see here and here. Mugsalot (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mugsalot: I don't think that any one is contending these are two seperate ethnic groups, but instead I think the framework being used here is that these are two distinct communities within the same ethnic grouping. I think that is a pretty fair characterization of the situation at least in Sweden (after reading Martin Berntson's writings on that topic). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mugsalot:, you are right about the phenomena of recurring appearance of new users who are immediately focused on complex issues before making any substantial contributions to contents of disputed articles. But it is also noticeable that pro-Aramean editors, both past or present, are very dissatisfied by dominance of pro-Assyrian terminology. It seems to me that full acknowledgment of self-identification is the only way forward. It is quite clear that modern Arameans do not want to be put under Assyrian "umbrella" (as you have put it), and it is my impression that large section of academic community is favoring modern Aramean self-identification. Besides that, the very notion of any "umbrella" term for all Syriac Christians from the Near East became practically inapplicable on formal grounds, since 2014, when Israel officially recognized Arameans in Israel as a distinctive community. Application of Assyrian designation as "umbrella" term for that article would therefore be quite problematic. Sorabino (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

MJL, you'd be surprised how often these editors advocate complete separation between the various identities. That is not a fair characterisation of the situation, they both belong to the same churches and descend from the same villages, yet disagree over which term to use to identify by.

Sorabino, their dissatisfaction frequently manifests itself in disruptive editing, poor referencing, and persistency spanning months and multiple accounts to say the least. There's nothing pro-Assyrian in acknowledging the reality that Assyrian is the umbrella term in English for this ethnic group. The issue stems from the fact that many of these users come from countries in which Aramean is a more popular term, as can be seen to their frequent referrals to Dutch or German language sources, and complain that it's different in a different language, that's all. I disagree with that impression. Yes all fourteen people in Israel who agreed to identify as Aramean is sufficient evidence to overlook the mountain of evidence I have provided time and time again, he said somewhat sarcastically. Mugsalot (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot, I understand the complexity of all those questions, particularly those related to divisions between compatriots and relatives. It seems that there are many examples where one branch of the same family is declaring as Assyrian, while other branch is declaring as Aramean, not to mention additional divisions related to modern Chaldean or even Phoenician identities. There are many negative sides to those divisions, and they represent a heavy burden for all communities of Syriac Christians, and also for many editors, particularly here here on English Wikipedia. But the greatest challenge, in my opinion, comes from mutual denialism, that remains the main source of internal disputes and conflicts. It seems that main organizations and institutions, both pro-Assyrian and pro-Aramean, are deeply invested in mutual denialism, instead of focusing on their own patrimonial heritages. As I said earlier, it seems to me that there is a strong tendency among modern scholars to acknowledge both communities, modern Assyrian and modern Aramean, not just on formal (terminological) grounds, but rather in terms of distinctive identities, based on historical traditions of ancient Assyrians and ancient Arameans. Of course, many people would prefer unity, but on their own terms: pan-Assyrians would like everybody to be Assyrian, while pan-Arameans would like everybody to be Aramean. But reality is much more complex, and we as editors should try to find the best possible way for addressing those issues, primarily by content developement in relevant articles. Sorabino (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a really hard name controversy to solve, but seeing these edit-wars are ongoing for already more than 10 years is really crazy. I think like Sorabino stated that the German Wikipedia has 2 apart pages for Arameans and Assyrians about both ancient an modern people, that we can also apply this on the English Wikipedia. I've read comments from other users regarding this content dispute also that do speak of these two groups as two seperate groups. Also I came across different official documents and essays saying these groups differ from eachother, however I also came across other sources speaking of them as one group. I think like there are already several articles about these groups that are apart like Assyrians in Israel and Arameans in Israel this would be the only solution to apply on the whole English Wikipedia. So concluded: Assyrians about modern-Assyrians, Arameans about modern-Arameans, Assyria about the ancient Assyrians and Aram (region) about the ancient history of the Arameans. In articles regarding both groups for example Seyfo we can use a redirect to both pages with a backslash so both will be included Assyrians/Arameans. I'm pretty much sure this will decrease the edit-wars regarding these topics. What do you think Sorabino since I see you as the point of contact regarding these articles with neutral contributions regarding the articles haha! :) Reldex (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Reldex:, you are proposing a series of very complex changes. There has never been any real consensus on those issues, and I doubt that it would be achieved any time soon. It seems to me, at this point, that some of your proposals are too far reaching, and their implementation would seriously affect not only the distribution of content in relevant articles, but also the present arrangement of main redirects, that are linked to many articles. Maybe we should continue to focus on content development in existing articles, because there is so much work to be done before we reopen the biggest questions, related to primary meanings and uses of terms like Assyrian and Aramean. Divisions (splitting) of articles, based on ancient-modern distinctions for both of those subjects should be undertaken as a result of internal developments of contents in relevant pages. In principle, I do not support the proposal for turning territorially defined article Aram (region) into a primary article for ancient Arameans, and thus reducing article Arameans only to content related to modern Arameans. That would be in contrast with the primary meaning of the term Arameans in English language, because wast majority of readers who are searching for the Wikipedia article on Arameans are primarily looking for contents related to ancient Arameans and their heritage. Sorabino (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sorabino: Well the name controversy we have here is very complex so I think there needs to be a solution for it or at least a solution that will decrease ongoing editwars. There doesn't need to be reached any consensus if both groups have a page about their own modern and ancient part. Also by turning the page Arameans into a page about the modern people I did not meant to remove any current content on that page, but rather to add more content about the modern people. A small redirect above the page can link to Aram (region) with a small text that that article is going deeper into the rise of the Arameans, their ancient history, kings and city-states.

So with that both groups have a page about their modern and historic status > No edit-wars will be made anymore regarding these two pages or in a much lesser degree. The second struggle we have is there are pages about events that these groups are both affected by, such as the Seyfo in this article we could use a backslash to both modern pages Aramean/Assyrian > Both groups are included and no edit-wars will be made anymore. It really isn't that hard, just think simple.

Please notice that by doing this you don't give Pan-Assyrianism or Pan-Arameanism a chance since both of them will be named equally with a backslash.Reldex (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Reldex:, there are no simple solutions here. Take a look at the article that is currently called Terms for Syriac Christians. Main sections of that article, that are related to various identities and corresponding disputes, can be significantly improved by adding scholarly referenced content. If some consensus could be reached there, that would be a major step forward. And generally speaking, specific issues related to the content of article Arameans should be discussed on the talk page of that article, thus allowing other interested editors to take part in these renewed discussions. As you can see, recently there have been several discussions on that talk page, related to questions that are mentioned here. Sorabino (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sorabino: I sure can point it out on the talkpage Arameans, however I see that already 2 RFC's were opened the past year, both opposed by one and the same user who also responded here above; Mugsalot. So I can open a third RFC however I don't think that's necessary because in the previous RFC already some users and mods voted for an improvement on content about the modern people on the page Arameans. So if you're giving green light I can improve the article Arameans by adding scholarly referenced content about the modern people and without removing any of the current text on the page! :)Reldex (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Reldex:, I am not an arbiter in this matter, no single editor is. Community is the one that decides on contentious issues, and therefore no single editor can give you a "green light" of any kind. Regarding the article on Arameans, if you want to make any additions please try to use scholarly sources, because it is my impression that data from sites of various activist organizations are not always reliable. It seems that you forgot to sign your previous comment. Sorabino (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sorabino: Ok, I will try my best to improve the article ofcourse with scholarly sources, however I just discovered that the page Assyria also consists a lot of information about the modern people which I didn't know and actually didn't expect hmm.. and I indeed forgot to sign my previous comment haha :)! Reldex (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Reldex:, article on Assyria is regionally defined, and there is no problem with that article containing sections on both ancient and modern history of the region. Sorabino (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles on various Assyrian themes

There are several articles on various Assyrian themes that are minor in scope but important by content, and some of those articles have been recently proposed for deletion or assessment of notability. For example, article on the Assyrian Academic Society has been proposed for deletion. Also, removal of major sections from the article on the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies has been attempted twice, and that was followed by a move for the assessment of notability. In order to improve and preserve those articles, I recently added some referenced contents, but in the field of editing more help is always welcomed, and also needed, since the importance of those articles should be reflected in the quality of their contents. Sorabino (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that no editors who are actively contributing to main articles on Assyrian-related themes were invited to take part in current discussions on proposed deletions (here and here) of articles on the Assyrian Academic Society and Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies. Those articles are important, and should not be deleted. Unfortunately, some users are claiming that those articles are not notable enough to be kept. On the other side, both of those articles could be improved, as stated above. Sorabino (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2021

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

Not moved. There is a clear consensus against the proposed move. BD2412 T 23:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Assyrian people → Assyrians (ethnic group) – I believe that this title is more precise and less confusing, see below. (t · c) buidhe 22:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Red Slash 17:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• It is confusing that "Assyrians" and "Assyrian people" target different pages.
• Using "ethnic group" as a disambiguator makes it clear that this article is about the Assyrian ethnic group as opposed to other things listed at Assyrian disambiguation page, improving WP:PRECISION and WP:Recognizability.
• Most reliable sources use "Assyrians", not "Assyrian people", to refer to the subject of this article (WP:COMMONNAME); however, either of these terms may refer to people of the Assyrian Empire making disambiguation useful.
• Another option is "Modern Assyrians", however, this title would seem to imply that modern Assyrians are a different ethnic group from ancient Assyrians which is disputed.
• Although most ethnic groups use plural form (eg. Czechs) or "people" (Japanese people), there are exceptions where needed for precision, such as Macedonians (ethnic group) (not to be confused with Macedonians from Greece). (t · c) buidhe 22:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Also, using "Assyrians" instead of "Assyrian people" is more WP:CONSISTENT with Assyrians in Finland, Assyrians in France, Assyrians in Greece, Assyrians in Iraq and other articles about Assyrian ethnic group. (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, before making my suggestion, I'm trying to understand the problem that you seek to solve. You say that it "is confusing that 'Assyrians' and 'Assyrian people' target different pages." Assyrians currently is a disambiguation page. Is this a problem and if so why? gidonb (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the average person is not going to see any semantic difference between "Assyrians" and "Assyrian people" since these terms are synonymous in English. This is the usual behavior on Wikipedia as well; both Germans and German people redirect to the same page. Some might say that "people" is a natural disambiguation for "ethnic group", but the word is not that specific. It basically means individuals associated with X thing, whether it is an ethnicity or something else; Wikipedia has articles for Asian people, Black people, Hill people, HIV-positive people, Multiracial people, Northern Irish people, Soviet people (none of these is an ethnic group) etc. Since "people" often has a geographic meaning rather than an ethnic one it cannot distinguish Assyrian ethnic group from people of ancient Assyria. (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the name Assyrians would be more fitting to this page --Sargon Gallu (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Does not solve the alleged problem. "Assyrians" should redirect to this article, as it did before. What should be added is a "For other uses, see [disamb-page]..."-note at the top, as in Greeks for example. Shmayo (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment on some procedural issues. Questions raised by this RM are relevant not only for this article, but also for many other articles that are related to Assyrian community, and the same set of questions is also relevant for all other articles on Assyrian themes in general. Complex terminological questions such as those should be discussed thoroughly, before initiation of any formal procedures (such as RM). The very history of this TP is advising us to be careful and also mindful of various complexities, disputes and wider implications of those terminological issues. Unfortunately, the nominator opted for the RM, instead of opening a TP section on the subject in question. Discussions on such important issues should not be constrained by formal limitations of procedures such as RM, since the proper resolution of those issues requires examination of all relevant and in this case very complex issues, preferably with wider participation. At this point, apart from the TP of Project Assyria, there are no wider notifications on this RM, not even in the form of basic notifications on talk pages of several articles that are directly affected by questions raised by this RM, such as: Assyria, Assyrian homeland, Assyrian continuity, Assyrian nationalism, and Terms for Syriac Christians (an article specifically dedicated to those terminological issues). Therefore, I would urge the nominator to consider placing some basic notifications on talk pages of those articles, in order to widen participation in these discussions. Sorabino (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Shmayo (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. The title needs to be more neutral OR include the Aramean and Chaldean names OR these groups need their own page since several differenties are found between them. Reldex (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is dedicated to Assyrians - those who are identified as such in historical sources, and those who self-identify as such in modern times. Since ancient Assyrians, ancient Arameans, and ancient Chaldeans were three distinctive peoples, there is no need for inclusion of additional names into the title of this article, because subjects related to modern Arameans and modern Chaldeans are already covered in other articles. This article is focused on Assyrians, and there is no need to change that. Sorabino (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is perfectly fine. There is no need to inject a parenthetical disambiguation into it. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2021

Change X
Minority Muslim← to Y none. As an Assyrian There is no minority in our ethnic group that practice Islam the one who were forced to be Muslim in Turkey 1920 were mostly assimilate to Turk identity or arab we have no records of any Muslim in our current time . Assyrians practice Christianity fully. Please make the correction to none. It’s a taboo to marry Muslims or any other religion which this promotes false facts. thank you. Jacoulgen (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jacoulgen:  Done You seem to be right that this is not particularly well supported in our current article (currently reads: Assyrians are endogamous, meaning they generally marry within their own ethnic group, although exogamous marriages are not perceived as a taboo, unless the foreigner is of a different religious background, especially a Muslim.). I won't be against re-adding it if it gets mentioned in the body and this gets clarified.
I should also mention that we don't mention Assyrian Jewish people in the same area despite the following text: During the Assyrian genocide,[274] there were a number of Assyrians who converted to Islam. They reside in Turkey, and practice Islam but still retain their identity.[275][276] A small number of Assyrian Jews exist as well.[277] Therefore, it probably is undue weight which lead to an edit request like this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for making the correction to the religion part we truly appreciate it , I wanted to explain more about assyrians who converted to Islam during the genocide Seyfo for sake of not been killed many were sold and take by Kurds and Turks families and people so growing up they had to covert to Islam after 97 years from the genocide it’s been. These people are no longer Assyrians. .they are not recognized as Assyrians by our ethnicity nor outsiders even Others usually in shook to know they call themselves assyrians we have our tribes and villages we been trying to build our identity from the horror we went threw.it’s been 97 years after the genocide due to them losing their Assyrian identity by genetics with them being mixed with Kurds and Turks people ,language, culture ,religion. Especially they don’t practice our culture i seen many so called Assyrians in Turkey who are Muslims they do not even speak our language to begin with. they are not Assyrians indigenous people anymore even if they practice our identity because they are intermixed with Muslim like Kurds Turks etc during these 97 years that past they are literally not even close to being Assyrian.. They intermixed with many none Christian none Assyrian middle eastern ethnicities and on top of that they do not speaking our motherland language are no longer an ethnic Assyrian because we are a minority. our Assyrian people will definitely not be okay with having Islam in religions practices on Wikipedia page when we are 99.0% practice Christianity. when they were there isn’t even exact number of those those claiming to be Assyrians by identity it’s close to 100 to rare as well as I want to say Assyrians for most partdisown them so in general we don’t count any Assyrian who left the religion of our ethnicity to be any other religions not only Islam .. We heard there are some Assyrian jews you’re correct on that. Assyrians are known to be very taboo due to the genocides we been threw my family came from hakkari Turkey my grandmother was a run away from the genocide they survived they were ready to die and not lose their religion which is huge part of our identity they fled away to iraq , we definitely don’t our this page to become a religion political arguments regarding religion. it’s be:5 for it to be Christianity like you put it since that’s what predominantly all of us are. Thank you again I hope your understanding, if anyone tries to add other religions make sure they are not trying be problematic or can actually provide facts about it. l but like I said as Assyrian we don’t have any minority from us we recognize as Assyrian Muslims especially dating back to 97 years ago 1924 that many centuries passed by.

Sincerely,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacoulgen (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

In the "religion" section, this article makes the claim that "While Assyrians are predominantly Christian, an echoing minority, particularly those raised in the west, tend to be irreligious or atheistic in nature." This seems to me at least to be a rather important detail, though no citations are given to back up this bold claim. I suggest that this line either be given a proper citation that backs this claim up, or the line should be removed. MrRungus (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I have added {{citation needed}} to the statement. ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 21:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done The user who added that language (in this diff) was blocked for repeatedly adding false information, so I rewrote the sentence and sourced it. Vahurzpu (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2021

Mar23744 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

| religions
Minority Muslim add (forced conversion) next to it. To make more sense Since the Muslim minority were due to the forced conversion from the genocide.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elizium23 (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

someone fix the infobox

the infobox has pretty terrible mistakes like listing the amount of dutch-syriacs as "thousands" and 3000 british syriacs lower than some countries with less than 300 syriacs. FizzoXD (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2021

The infobox has the following stat:

• region11 = flag:Australia
• pop11 = 46,217

However, looking at the reference cited, there is no mention whatsoever of Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac, or any similar origins in the source. That given figure might be correct - or not - but this ref does not support it. At the risk of being told to "gain consensus first", I request that either a failed verification tag, like this, {{not in source}} is put on the ref, or it is replaced with an RS that actually contains the information. Let me know if you want to find a relevant source. I would be happy to try to assist by looking at the ABS site, if it would help. Thanks. (Adjusted 49.177.69.7 (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC))

References

}} 49.177.69.7 (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done I just removed the entry for Australia, pending sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, that was quick! I just looked back at the article and for a minute thought I had hallucinated the information. You take the record for speedy response.49.177.69.7 (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Friesian.com

Please remove the sentence:

In certain areas of the Assyrian homeland, identity within a community depends on a person's village of origin (see List of Assyrian settlements) or Christian denomination rather than their ethnic commonality, for instance Chaldean Catholics preferring to be called Chaldeans instead of Assyrians, or a Syriac Orthodox Christian preferring to be called a Syriac-Aramean.

That may well be true, but the source that the sentence cites is not reliable. I have said before Special:Diff/1023305928 that friesian.com is the personal website of a former community college philosophy professor – hence not a reliable source on subjects other than philosophy – who is prone to going off on political tangents, and sometimes outright ranting, on pages that are ostensibly about history or philosophy. (The page cited here includes several examples.) Because this article is semi-protected, I cannot remove the citation, and unfortunately I don't know of better sources that support this sentence, but I believe the sentence should be removed if no better source can be found. 98.247.92.193 (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Suggestions

1. Rename page to Assyrians instead of Assyrian people.

2. Remove exact areas within parts of the Assyrian homeland. For northern Iraq, we are not only indigenous to the Nineveh Plains and Duhok Governorate, but much more of northern Iraq as well.

3. Total population section is a mess with all those citations/sources. Remove all outdated/old sources and only keep updated and recent sources about our population estimates. Aghapetros (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2022

I am personally Assyrian and I would like to change on how many assyrians there are in population groups 172.88.22.68 (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nythar^T.C 07:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits in lead

I would suggest anyone with good knowledge of the article's history and this topic might want to look again at recent edits made by TruthInMesopotamia. I thought I should flag this as there are probably issues that would appear on a closer look, since the editor has made numerous problematic edits elsewhere (see their talk page). It started with unsourced changes here, followed by "sourced" edits that changed some information and added some citations while also keeping the old citations in place, which might create WP:INTEGRITY issues. The edits are marked as "minor" but generally involve some content changes or edits to wording that may be less neutral than before; e.g. here they changed the wording around ancestry to be presented as fact rather than a claim, even though it seems unlikely any reliable sources can "prove" this claim in such a way, and the added citations are vague (a book cited with no page number) and one has no apparent relevance (it's about Fuzzy logic). This kind of editing is often (though not always) a sign of trying to pass off WP:OR or POV material as "sourced", when it's not. R Prazeres (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Assyrians don’t exist they died out before christ. Syriacs, Chaldeans and Nestorians are all ARAMEANS.

Now when you don’t know what a word means, what do you do? You look it up in a dictionary! Luckily for you I have done that job for you. I have looked up the word Oromoyo (Aramean) in two authoritative Syriac-French (Syriaque-Francais) and English-Syriac dictionary.

In the French dictionary under the name Oromoyo it gives the explanation of two names: Araméen and Syrie, syriaque. (Dictionnaire Syriaque-Francais, Louis Costaz)

Another authoritative dictionary is the English one, under the name Oromoyo it gives a similar explaining, that is; Aramean and Syrian. (Syriac-English Dictionary)

In the Hebrew dictionary the word Aram gives us the impression of two names; Aram and Syriac (suryoye/syriac)

758 'Aram arawm' from the same as 759; the highland; Aram or Syria, and its inhabitants; also the name of the son of Shem, a grandson of Nahor, and of an Israelite:--Aram, Mesopotamia, Syria, Syrians.

761 Arammiy ar-am-mee' patrial from 758; an Aramite or Aramaean:--Syrian, Aramitess.

762 'Aramiyth ar-aw-meeth' feminine of 761; (only adverbial)in Aramean:--in the Syrian language (tongue), in Syriac.

1130 Ben-Hadad ben-had-ad' from 1121 and 1908; son of Hadad; Ben-Hadad, the name of several Syrian kings:--Ben-hadad.

By all Biblical translations the word Syria gives the meaning of Aram. I am yet to find a biblical translation that doesn't translate Syria into Aram and Aram-naharaim.

By the Catholic Encyclopedia the term ’’Syria’’ gives the meaning of Aram and Arameans.

In German litterateur; regarding their ”Semetic studies” the word ”Syria” and ”Syrian” is translated to ”Aram” and ”Arameans”. (Prof. Dietrich Hermann Hegewisch & Prof. Theodor Mommsen & Prof. Theodor Nöldeke & Prof. Karl Eduard Sachau)

Now moving on to a Syriac dictionary by Mor Touma Audo, a Aramean-Chaldean scholar and archbishop of Urmia, Iran. This is important because it is a Syriac dictionary. Mor Audo published ”The treasury of the Syriac language” in the year 1897 and it is still used today by Syriac monks, teachers and bishops. If we look under the word Oromoyo what we find is the term Oromoye renowned in Suryoye: Aramaya, Aramaye hanaw den Suryaye, Lishono suryaya aramaya, suryaya. In English: Aramaic, Arameans i.e Syriacs, Aramaic language, Syriac. And if we read in his preface he writes quotes like ’’The Aramean name is our genuine and original name’’.

I can talk for hours about the interrelation between the word Suryoye (Syrian) and Oromoye (Aramean) but I hope by now that some confusion has been clear. 185.176.246.64 (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you please provide some reliable sources for all your above claims ? Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Everything you wrote is 100% true. Assyrian nationalists manipulate the history of the Aramean/Syriac nation since the development of the Assyrian movements somewhere in 1840. Mostly since the diaspora the past 50 years they are manipulating and trying to Assyrianize the Aramean/Syriac name in every possible way. All Syriacs, Chaldeans and Assyrians are Arameans (which is synonymous to Syriacs). Syriac563 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources are kinda in my claims, you just need to google. But as I wrote before, I have done that job for you. In order:

1. French dictionary: Dictionnaire Syriaque-Francais, Louis Costan

2. English dictionary: English-Syriac dictionary (Both of these are available free on google.)

3. Hebrew dictionary https://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=

4. Regarding biblical translation you can you google whatever one you want, but I will provide a famous one; https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/S/syria.html

5. The Catholic Encyclopedia: https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11221

6. Regarding the German literature the sources are: Prof. Dietrich Hermann Hegewisch & Prof. Theodor Mommsen & Prof. Theodor Nöldeke & Prof. Karl Eduard Sachau. The only problem is that most of these are in German so it might be hard if you don’t know any German.

7. And lastly but not least the Treasury of the Syriac language’’, luckily for you this one is also available on google; https://archive.org/details/TreasureOfTheSyriacLanguage01/page/n3/mode/2up I hope you can read aramaic otherwise it will be hard.

I hope you enjoy reading these, because i did ;) 185.176.246.64 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Assyrians are related "Arabs"? Really?

What kind of Arabs anyway - The Jordanians, Libyans, Algerians, Egyptians, Yemenis, etc? Assyrians plot very far from these sort of Arabs, but this section insinuates that Assyrians are related to all Arab groups. And what kind of Jews are Assyrians related to, the Mizrahi, Sephardic or the Ashkenazi? Why is there no specificity? The "related ethnic groups" section is too vague and broad. Arabs are a culture nowadays anyway and Jews are a religion too. We need to be more specific with ethnic groups in this section.

I find it really shocking that Armenians are not included. Because it should be the first one as Assyrians and Armenians have been neighbours for a millennia and even had intermixed. Kurdish Jews and Iranian Jews are also closely related peoples to the Assyrians, and as well as Iraqi Kurds. But of course, it is convenient to vaguely include Jews and Arabs because, well, they speak a Semitic language, so therefore this means close affinity, yes? Nope! This is just as absurd as stating, "Chadic people are more closely related to Syrians than to Cameroonians because Chadians and Syrians speak an Afro-Asiatic language, and Cameroonians don't". This language family logic makes me facepalm and it should be terminated already.

I know, there should be sources for this. There are probably tons of them, but I think they're not allowed as there is some deep bias in this tendentious article. 14.201.101.68 (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there should be sources. And if you're not interested in finding them, then you've got a self-defeating statement here. Do you have any interest in improving the article? Elizium23 (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I've said this multiple times (see Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 16#Edit-warring): This field should never have been reinserted in the box. There simply is no coherent, sourcable set of criteria for what constitutes "relatedness" between ethnic groups. I've removed it once more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Those 2-5 millions are not only assyrians its with the Arameans and Chaldeans too add their flag

Those 2-5 millions are not only assyrians its with the Arameans and Chaldeans too add their flag 78.82.139.166 (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit reauest

Please remove the term indigenous ad it implies other ethnic groups in Western Asia are not indigenous. 2600:100C:A206:F6CD:6C20:118:1A4F:3F43 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023

the source https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/sodertalje/statministerns-folkmordsbesked-kan-avgora-kommunvalet-underskatta-inte-fragan where the wikipedian article states that 150 thosand assyrians live in sweden is simply completely innacurate. The source explicity states "folkmordet år 1915 i dåvarande Osmanska riket då över 1,5 miljon assyrier/syrianer och armenier mördades.

Över 150 000 personer i Sverige, varav 30 000 bara i Södertälje, är ättlingar till de som överlevt."

I will translate this for you

" The massacre year 1915 in the then current ottoman empire where over 1.5 milion assyrians/syrian peoples and armenians were murdered

Over 150 000 people in sweden, whereas 30 000 just in södertälje(a swedish city), are descendants to those who survived."

So to begin with, this number is not just for assyrians but its a clump sum of all three ethnicities of assyrians/syrians and armenians. not only that, its also not directly people of those ethnicities instead it is ?descendants of those ethnitities so these 150 000 people are not fully one ethnicity but aslso mixed. Eitherway in the wikipedia article it seems that we have 150 000 assyrian people in sweden which would make assyrians the second most populous group in sweden. This simply does not make any sense.

With regards Emil from sweden. 84.217.31.172 (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A better source is needed for numbers anyway. I note that according to https://www.myndighetensst.se/bidrag/organisationsbidrag/bidragsgrundande-statistik/statistik-2020.html that just shy of 10,000 people in Sweden are registered members of the Assyrian Church of the East (Österns assyriska kyrka). Note these may be more recent immigrants and their descendants. There are two other Syrian Christian denominations listed and some of their members are also Assyrian. These numbers also wouldn't include those not officially affiliated with a religion or have converted to a different religion. However 10,000 in Sweden would be the minimum it seems. BTW it seems Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden has some info. Erp (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Iraq's numbers are wrong

In ankawa there is 70.000 Assyrians duhok 52.000 and at least 200.0000 in Nineveh plains alone there is also another 35.000 in other places in southern Iraq Kirkuk sulaymani shaqlawa 185.106.28.42 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit committing in September 2023

Hello Adakiko,

Thank you for taking the time to review the recent edits. I value your attention to detail and dedication to upholding the quality of the content. The edits were made with the intent to provide more specific and relevant information, aiming for a more comprehensive representation of the topic.

I want to emphasize that the edits were the result of an extensive and meticulous effort. It was a complex task that required a significant amount of time and careful research. The objective was to enhance the article and contribute to a more informed narrative about the subject matter.

However, I would like to express my concern about the reversion of these edits. The process involved considerable dedication and thoroughness, and it is disheartening to see such an effort reverted without a detailed discussion. Understanding the reasoning behind the reversion is crucial for making meaningful improvements.

The goal is to ensure the article reflects the most accurate and informative content. If there are specific concerns or suggestions regarding the edits, I'm eager to address them and further enhance the article through collaboration. Diklath (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Diklath: You should get wp:consensus for your intended major edits from the community, not just me. My concern with your edit is the removal of 75 citations without explanation. Many of the sub-sections in the History section are unsourced including the Origins, Old Assyrian Period, Middle Assyrian Empire, Neo-Assyrian Empire, Christian Era and Evolution of Assyrian Identity, Arab Conquests, The Mongol Conquest sections. Per wp:verifiability, they need to cite sources even if there is a link to another Wikipedia article. You might put your edits in your sandbox, add citations, and then direct others (here) to your sandbox with an explanation for your changes. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2023

Hey there,

I’m an Assyrian residing in Singapore. To my knowledge I’m the only one (!!). Would it be possible to add an entry in the list showing Singapore 1 ?

Thank you. 175.156.137.4 (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:RS and WP:NOR, your personal experience is not a sufficient source for Wikipedia. --AntiDionysius (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Numbers in Iraq are 257.000-282.000

I saw a lot of assyrian politicians saying that these are our numbers in interviews with major Iraqi news outlets 185.106.28.64 (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

More stuff

more people see this 93.63.210.194 (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Numbers in Iraq are around 300-400 thousand.

According to Rudaw, there is around 300 thousand Assyrians in Iraq. https://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/08122023 The Assyrian Politician Romeo Hakkari also claims that he estimates there are 600-700 thousand Assyrians in Iraq on the same page.

According to Kirkuk Now, there is around 400 thousand Assyrians left in Iraq with "Latest Figures" https://www.kirkuknow.com/en/news/65567 Youhanna5 (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2024

Please Change the total population back to 3.3-5+ Million, as this is what the sources linked say. Youhanna5 (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done The editor who changed the value didn't leave an edit summary, so it's hard to say why they changed it in the first place. In any case, this is the value range that the cited sources give. Liu1126 (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

"The Way"

I have been a Christian my whole life and have never heard of "The Way." If this is a real thing, it should be linked. 184.170.171.43 (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2024

Assyrian number in Geramany are way more according to official german sources "(Ihre Anzahl wird auf über 130.000 geschätzt) [...]" Yuhanon47 (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Warning: Rules for this page

Re-posting this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Can I get an explanation of why the section "Legends Mythology used as historical evidence to promote notions of Assyrian Continuity" was collapsed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Legends.2FMythology_used_as_historical_evidence_to_promote_notions_of_Assyrian_Continuity

The explanation given does not make any sense...."another thread veering off into exchange of personal ideological talking points." it could not of possible been the case, since there was only my single post in the section. It could not have been an "exchange" nor "veering off", and the rest of the edit was in complete compliance with the Rules.

Sr 76 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Please explain why you allowed this page to revert back to the Politically driven assyrian properganda page you it was earlier. The rules you have put in place, why are they no longer being enforced?Sr 76 (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello ? @Future Perfect at Sunrise: what happened to your rules? Your rules seemed to be irrelevant now?Sr 76 (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2024

The "Genetics" part is too superficial and doesn't go into detail. I suggest editing it and adding more data with clear sources from genetic tests so there is no misunderstanding. FalitoMardinoyo47 (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)