Jump to content

Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Religion

There are no Assyrian Jews, you must take Judaism out of the religion section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AssyrianJoe (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent vote to move page back to Assyrian people

So Dab recently initiated another vote to move this page back to Assyrian people. As of now, the results are as follows:

  • 6 in favour of moving this page back to Assyrian people.
  • 3 in favour of leaving this page as it is.

The last addition to the vote/discussion was on December 14th. So, why hasn't anybody moved the page back yet? Dab, you were so quick to move the page to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people after the previous vote, which had less participants than this vote. Why the sudden lack of action? --Šarukinu (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

IF this article moves back to Assyrian people, then the Syriac people article must be recreated. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarukinu, you can add me ot the list of wanting to move this page back to Assyrian people. A few points I would like to make regarding the issue. "This article currently is breaking multiple Wikipedia rules. First: Wikipedia:Naming conflict

  • Article names - A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name.
Currently, the article has 3 names.
  • Article names - Wikipedia's technical and practical requirements mean that one particular name must be used as the definitive name of an article. If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree. Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons.
In another words, you do not have the right to move the page to another name just for the sake of you disagreeing about rather or not these people being descents of the ancient Assyrians.

From Naming Conflict page, Wikipedia gives us different kind of methods to determine what the most common name in the English language for the subject is. In every single test we have previously proven that Assyrian is the favorable choice by a minimum margin of 4 to 1 (please take a look at the archives.)

One last thing I'd like to talk about is lately User:Dab has been favoring removing all Assyrian reference and replacing it with Syriacs or Syriac Christians, claiming it is the most neutral choice. I respect dab's work in the project, but despite the large amounts of work you have contributed to it, their are still a few important things you seem to misunderstand. Most importantly what is the rationship between the English Syriac and the Aramaic Suraya/Soroyo and Suret. Syriac has always been the English equivlance to Suret - that is the actual language itself. But what the people called themselves, Suraya/Soroyo has always been translated as Syrian. This has been the cause for 1900 years until 8 years ago when East Syrians of the Syrian Orthodox Church decided to translate it to Syriac. With that being understood, Syriac Christians is mostly a reference to ALL Syriac speaking Church members. That includes more then 5 million Indians in Kerala, a few million Malankara Christians in the ME, and another 3 million Maronites in Lebanon (see Syriac Christianity for the complete list.) Therefor Syriac Christians or Syriacs is NOT the name of an ethnic group. Its a religious denom. Iraqi (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Iraqi. There is one question I would like to ask you, however. Can you validate your population estimates of Malankara Christians and Maronites?
At any rate, the vote thus stands as follows:
  • 7 in favour of moving the article back to Assyrian people.
  • 3 in favour of leaving the article as it is.
I would like to propose that we close this poll within the next 7 days, since Dab did not specify a time-frame. As of now, it is January 3, 2009, 9:11AM Eastern Time. The poll will close on January 10, 2009, 9:11AM Eastern Time. If anybody has any disagreements, please express them sooner rather than later. I strongly encourage everybody to participate in this vote. --Šarukinu (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets think about it for a second, If we are to turn it back to a "Assyrian People" page then we must make sure that by "Assyrian" we mean members of the Syriac Orthodo/Catholic Church, Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East, and Chaldean Catholic Churches. For example, when talking about population, we must include all those people, not just pick and choose 1 or 2 of the Assyrian churches listed above and describe that as the entire Assyrian population. This inclusion of all "Assyrians" must be consistent throughout 2nd (for User:ArameanSyriac) There is already a Syriac page [[1]], If you want to make a page on Syriac People, then find sources dealing with Syriac People not members of the Syriac Orthodox and Catholic Church. A better title would be Aramean since that is an ethnicity. 3rd (to all those who are in favour) Is it really that worth it? I mean regular people reading the current state will now know that Assyrians (whatever that is these days) Chaldeans and Syriacs are "somehow" related. They will read the article and they will be educated that we are all the same. However if we change it, then they will read here that Syriacs are also included in Assyrians, then they will go to Syriacs People page and they will get different information then they did here. They will most likely get an overexagurated population figure of 4 000 000, they will read that Syriacs are desendents of Ancient Arameans, and that basically Syriacs have little to no relations with Assyrians. I was always insisted that I would be in favour of the "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" title (even though incorrect) if there wasn't so much "contributions" from "Arameans" to change much of the page to meet their standards. I was somehow in favour a couple of days ago as The TriZ and I actually worked together (I know its hard to believe), but that was bashed as User:ArameanSyriac came back in the frey. You guys have to realize that the incorrect "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" people does bring about more unity between the Assyrian Churches then the correct "Assyrian".Malik Danno (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in some respects, but at the same time I disagree. One of your points with which I agree is that having separate pages will open the floor to potential discrepancies between the respective pages. This, however, can be ameliorated with joint efforts on all of the respective pages to make them as consistent as possible.

However, as per Wikipedia:Naming conflict, our job as Wikipedia editors is not to enforce which name "should be" used; our purpose is to state which name is used. In the English language, according to various database and search-engine queries (see above; scroll down a bit upon clicking this link for the search results), Assyrian is the term that is used most often to refer to the Assyrians. We must therefore use what is "correct", and not what "bring[s] about more unity". Remember, Wikipedia articles must be void of political agendas. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to unite a people, rather its purpose is to offer information on a wealth of subjects.

This article was perfectly fine before the move to "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people", as it explicitly stated that Assyrians are also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs. We can have a central article which briefly deals with the naming dispute yet treats all three parties as parts of the same ethnic group. Names of Syriac Christians contains such subject matter, however the title implies also the Malankara Christians and Kerala Indians who also adhere to Syriac Christianity but are not ethnically related to Assyrians.

For better or for worse, millions of people acquire their knowledge from Wikipedia articles, as it is free and relatively quickly obtained. We should be very careful with how we represent the identity of the Assyrian people to the world. If Wikipedia is to be a credible source of such information, we must not let political agendas and political correctness get in the way of truth. Unity is the ideal, but it is not the truth, as of yet. Should a name be accepted and adopted by the majority of these people, then we can reasonably present it as truth. Until then, however, we must have the separate pages, as was the case not too long ago.

I applaud everybody involved in this article for your mutual cooperation and apparent desire for unity. But in accordance with Wikipedia's rules and regulations, and as a fellow Assyrian, I ask you all to leave unity to the people and, to a lesser extent, to the politicians. Let us simply convey what is true, as that is why we are here (hopefully!). --Šarukinu (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Its better to have 1 article for the Assyrian/chaldean/syriac pople. if you do 2 article one for "assyrian" and one for "syriac" tahn you ahve to do one for chaldean maronitc... and this not good. it is the smae people with many names 1 article is better if anybody search information about these peoples he dont have to read 3 artcles or more.(talk)

Šarukinu, im for moving back to "Assyrian people" IF we have two articles, one named "Syriac people" and one named "Assyrian people". This will end this whole problem and the name conflict in wikipedia. I think many here is for having two articles, one named Syriac people and one Assyrian people. Me, The Triz, malik danno and im sure many more is for that. Also if we have two articles, then im pretty sure more users will go on for moving back article to "Assyrian people". AramaeanSyriac (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
That's where you are wrong, I am not for a "Syriac People" page, I am for you creating an "Aramean People" page. This is what will happen in a "Syriac People" page, you will not source anything dealing with Syriac People themselves, rather you will use sources dealing with the members of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Churches. You will not find any sources defining Syriacs as a people so you will result in using members of the syriac Churches as your sources. That is clearly incorrect as the last time I checked Indians (members of the Syriac Orthodox Church) are not the same people as you. An example will be that in that page it will be posted that there are 4 million Syriac people, but when we check your sources, we will find out that that source does not deal with Syriac People rather members of the Syriac Orthodox Church, and this will be seen throughout the page. Also you are unwilling to use "Aramean People" because you know that Aramean People are not recognized anywhere in the world (except maybe Germany) and there will be no sources to back up your claims. In the end you will use "Syriac People" but use sources pertaining to "Syriac Orthodox/Catholic" churches ... which is incorrect. Malik Danno (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Please show me where i used syr orthodox church as source except in the population box?

AramaeanSyriac (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Malik Danno and AramaeanSyriac please refrain from going off-topic. Let's get some more votes here, we have less than 6 days left.

That being said, I will have to agree with AramaeanSyriac on this one. Syriac people is more commonly used than Aramaean people, and we can thus find much more credible sources. Again, as I have mentioned before, we must represent what is truth, not what is ideal or rational. --Šarukinu (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian people is the most common, that is why I support a move back to Assyrian people. But if a move back to Assyrian people means that there will be pages called Syriac people, Chaldean people or something like that, then I'm against it. Shmayo (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarukinu, what I'm trying to say is that the title "Syriac People" will be incorrect because there will be no sources what so ever with their definition of Syriac people. The only sources they will get will pertain to members of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Church not Syriac People. When they will use sources that state Syriac People it will most likley be pertaining to Syriac Christianity (which includes Assyrians). When that happens then the truth (which you so dearly want) will be screwed to match what User:ArameanSyriac's views are. Tell me Sarukinu ... are you for the manipulation of sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Danno (talk • contribs) 04:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

...there will be no sources what so ever with their definition of Syriac people Are you really sure about that? Check the Syriac people article, the revision history and check all sources. All sources uses terms "Syriacs" or "Syriac people". The only sources using the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Church is in the population box. But that will get fixed. Also the article "Syriac people" will also deal with everyone who call themselves for arameans. Then this whole matter will get solved. "Assyrian people" and "Syriac people. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If we move the page back to Assyrian people, then their is nothing wrong with having a religious-subgroup page for Syriac Orthodox people, just like we have Chaldean Christians (see the green-tablet used instead of the ethnic brown. Iraqi (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No that article will deal with many groups such as assyrians, chaldeans, syriacs, arameans, maronites etc. We allreade have article about the chaldeans christians and the christian maronites and about the assyrians. The best thing to do is having two articles, one named Syriac people and one Assyrian people. Syriacs are an ethnic group. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes Iraqi I would be for having a section titled Syriac Orthodox People ... but I can't see User:ArameanSyriac ever accepting that.
Aramean Syriac how will that title (Syriac Orthodox People) be about Assyrian, Chaldeans, Syriacs etc. as you mentioned. From that title you would assume that it only talks about the members of the Syriac Orthodox Church ... so how can it include Chaldeans and Maronites? Ok so you said "The best thing to do is having two articles, one named Syriac people and one Assyrian people.", but what if when the Syriac People page becomes nothing but your POV? What if you misuse the sources? From what you are saying it seems like you will not do such things rite? So, IF those things occur do you give me permission to fix them (there is nothing to lose if you say yes, because you are saying you will not misuse sources) Malik Danno (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If we move back to Assyrian people, will it be just like before? One Assyrian people article and one Aramean-Syriac people article? Then we have to create a disamb page again, and all the problems will start again. Shmayo (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No misusing of sources will be done. Malik Danno i think the best thing is that each one of us stick to their own people article, ofcourse everyone of us could contribute to both articles. Instead of both sides attacking both articles, we could help each other. Shmayo no we have one "ASsyrian people" and one "Syriac people". ALl arameans will be included under the "Syriac people". AramaeanSyriac (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
All i want to see is reliable sources ... in Academia Turkish sources are not deemed as reliable, for obvious reasons. Malik Danno (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
malik Danoo, the problem with you is that instead of improving articles here on wikipedia, your job is to destroy all aramean-syriac related materials. Instead of that, you could put all your energy to the assyrian people article. I can also start to ask questions about the assyrian people article, but thats not my job. my job here is to improve the syriac people realted articles. Why dont you and all syriac aramean assyrian wikipedians here start to cooperate, instead of attackign eachother? AramaeanSyriac (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong in two ways:
  1. you are saying that I am the one who is not able to work together to improve articles. Yet it is you who had "contributed" negatively to this page sourcing nothing but Syraic references, and you were the one who was banned for 144 hours due to your constant vandalism in this page, and It is you who recently deleted about half this page ... just as The TriZ and I were working together to correct your "contributions". I don't see how someone with a record such as yours can point any fingers at anyone else and say they do not contribute.
  2. you are diverting the entire purpose of wikipedia ... why are you telling me to not get involved in the future page "Syriac People"? That defeats the entire purpose of Wikipedia, It is the DUTY of every member to discuss/fix any incorrect material which comes out of Wikipedia and so far that is all I have said that I will do. If there is any material which you bring up, and is supported with strong and reliable sources then I agree with you, but if otherwise then it is my duty (as well as any other member on wikipedia) to fix it. Malik Danno (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

AramaeanSyriac, there were no problems until you started to create proxy pages like "Syriac diaspora" and "History of the Syriac people" that were mirror pages of exising pages (Assyrian diaspora and History of the Assyrian people.) Regarding "Syriac" - how can Suret be an ethnicity? It never has been. Nobody in their right minds translates Suret as an ethnicity. Everyone here in the middle east knowns it as a name of a language (leshana.) But if your Church has decided on this matter regarding its followers, then thats fine. If your Church (since 2000) is giong to promote a new identity, then thats ok, no problem. But the Syriac Orthodox Church's identity crisis should not spell over us East Assyrians. You people can decided whatever you want to consider yourself as. Iraqi (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi, there wont be any articles like SYriac diaspora or history of the syriac people. there will only be Syriac people without proxy pages like you said. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

the "Syriac people" article is right here. If you move it back to "Assyrian people" I sure hope you won't leave the job to explaining that this is the "Syriac people" article to every Aramaeanist editor individually to me. --dab (𒁳) 12:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There wont be any any articles such as ARamean people or Aramean-Syriac people. All those who call them self for Syriacs, arameans, Arameansyriacs, west syriacs, west arameans etc etc will be coined in article Syriac people. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

New Proposition

We can all see that we are slit between 2 here. I have a new resolution to be discussed and I think that it fits in between and compromises both sides. My proposition is that we keep the name "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People" in the title and the template, but all the names in the page itself should be Assyrian (because currently it has Assyrian, Assyrian/Syriac, Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac, Syriac (very confusing)). What do you guys think about my idea? Malik Danno (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't keep "Assyria/Chaldean/Syriac people" because it goes against Wikipedia's rule of one title per page. Iraqi (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
that's nonsense. "Assyria/Chaldean/Syriac people" is "one title", namely the one chosen by the US census. There is no rule that "there may be no slashes in a title". There is another rule, known as WP:NPOV: it means that we'll have to stick with this title until the day the "Assyrias/Chaldeans/Syriacs" miraculously manage to agree among themselves. --dab (𒁳) 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
If you actually pay attention to the conversation then you will see that we all have agreed to would be best to split the articles.
(dab) "that's nonsense. Assyria/Chaldean/Syriac people is one title" - Says who? You seem to be very good at creating your own reality and dictaiting it on others as the actual rule. Wikipedia says ONE title for each page. Currently this article is breaking the rule. You've gone dislusional to the point where you actually don't see that three different names put together doesn't equate to multiple titles. Iraqi (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Dab you are not paying any attention to the discussion. We all have already agreed on splitting the article into Assyrian people, syriac pople. You were the one who messed this whole thing up, without reaching cons. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

you can't split the article without providing clean sources the split is based on. Wikipedia policy trumps fickle ad-hoc consensus among a handful of editors. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide clean sources on which the move to "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" was based, other than the U.S. and Swedish censuses? As I have mentioned before, our job as Wikipedia editors is to ensure that the truth is represented to the general public. The article as it stands is not a proper conveyance of truth, rather it is an ideal backed by a minority. The majority of these people do not call themsleves "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriacs"; the most common term is "Assyrian people", as per the searches on Google, Google Scholar, JSTOR, and many other search engines and journal article databases. There are more than a handful of editors arguing for the article to be reverted to Assyrian people. Your move, to which we contest, was backed by much less users at the time it was initially proposed. Even now, there are only a couple of editors opting for the article to stay as it is.

I find it puzzling that you shun away such a movement as this, and yet you support a small minority even in the face of the strong opposing arguments and all of the evidence and sources that have been accumulated over the past year which supports the article being named "Assyrian people". What I find even more puzzling is that you have not replied to any of my criticisms (scroll up one page upon clicking this link), and that you have seemingly avoided the issue and in stead left the rebuttal up to Andrewa. Please go over this when you have time. Again, I urge all other users to review my criticisms - Dab, as per WP:Administrators, you were expected to respond "promptly and civilly", and you failed to do so. Please rectify this, and perhaps then you may continue to partake in this discussion. This isn't an attack, this is simply a demonstration that administrators, such as Dab, are bound to all of the same guidelines that we editors must follow, and more.

Malik Danno, as for your proposition, it is inconsistent to name this article "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people", and then refer to them throughout the article solely as Assyrian people, or Assyrian/Syriacs, or Syriac people, etc. --Šarukinu (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, to criticize Dab (sorry for picking on you so much): we'll have to stick with this title until the day the "Assyrias/Chaldeans/Syriacs" miraculously manage to agree among themselves
What about those who do not see themselves as being part of the same ethnic group as their Assyrian, Chaldean, or Syriac counterparts (for example, a self-proclaimed Chaldean who does not view Assyrians and Syriacs to be part of his or her ethnic group)? Does that exclude them from this ethnic group? A title such as "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" does not represent those people, of which there are many. Whether or not this is right or ideal is not the aim of Wikipedia. We must represent the closest thing to truth. To counter your statement, which I quoted at the beginning of this paragraph, I would argue that we will have to stick with separate articles until the day that the Assyrian people miraculously agree on one name that unites them. --Šarukinu (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, Assyrian people is evidently not the most common name. We have done several google counts, and it has been proven that Syriacs (Assyrians is ambiguous and therefore not an option) is the most common name according to different google hit counts (regular hits, schoolar hits, book hits). Therefore it would be against wiki policies to change the name of the article to Assyrian people. The TriZ (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
´How many counts on "Assyrian people" is refering to the modern group? at least 50 procent of the counts are refering to the ancient assyrians. Even though Syriac is the most neutral term (Many Assyrians do call themselfs for Suryoye (Syriacs)), we must have two articles. Either we split this article into two articles and i have to agree with Sarukinu, as he said: "I would argue that we will have to stick with separate articles until the day that the Assyrian people miraculously agree on one name that unites them". One day we will agree on one name that unites assyrians,syriacs,arameans,chaldeans etc. But until that day, we have to stick with two articles. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Make your article ... good luck finding sources :D, ill be checking up on the page to make sure you don't use sources which talk about members of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Church and/or Turkish sources. And we will keep this page which state that under "Assyrian" we mean those members in middle east who are under the "Nestorian" Chaldean and Syriac Orthodox/Catholic churches. Malik Danno (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
...good luck finding sources :D, i already got 80 sources in the article mentioning the Syriac people. Turkish sources? Whats wrong about turkish sources? Wikipedia is full with turkish sources. Just because maybe you dont like turks, it does not mean that an article cant use turkish source. And Malik Danno, it seems that you will pick on the article "Syriac people", im pretty sure that will just result into more edit wars, vandalizm, reverts etc on both articles. Arameanists will also pick on article assyrian people. Why not instead of that, Arameanists stick into article Syriac people, and Assyrianists stick to their article? Instead of picki on article Syriac people, you could improve the ASsyrian people article. So far, i have not seen any improvments fom your side.AramaeanSyriac (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Triz what are you talking about. Every single Google test proved Assyrian to be the most common term by a ratio of 4 to 1. The phrase "Assyrian people" is 100% reference to modern Assyrians only, all you have to do is do the search and go through the results yourself. The reason why Assyrian people gives on ancient refence is because the ancient Assyrians where never a "people" ie a homogenious single people. Going back to dab's arguement of using the US census: Dab I took the 2000 US Census. There never was a "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" check box. Instead their were Assyrian alone, Syriac alone, and Chaldean alone. (Syriac and Chaldean were of course added in the year 2000 for the first time after Church pressures.) What the Census bueru did in the end thou was put all the numbers of Assyrian, Chaldean, and Syraic all together when counting only. Their were copies of the actual census online showing this. Iraqi (talk)

ArameanSyriac, you seem to comprehend what Wikipedia is ... Anyone can edit anything, So as a member it is my duty to edit whatever i think is incorrect. I will not vandalize, and have not vandalized a page yet (unlike some other people). If I feel that something in any page is incorrect then I will do my best to discuss/fix it. Also, are you serious in claiming that Turkish sources are reliable? Its not that I don't like the Turks (please do not assume things or put words in my mouth) its just in Academia turkish news outlets are not 100% reliable. Malik Danno (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Also just like in this current page there is a neutral section called "Identity" which describes the various identities of the Assyrian People (Amramean, Chaldean etc.) I will add an Identity section on the Syriac People page for the members of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Church who call themselves Assyrian. Malik Danno (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


Fine Chaldean/Iraqi, let ous do a final Google test.
And about those 100% of yours, I checked the first 10 hits in the books search, at least halft of them is only about the ancient Assyrians. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. In addition at least one more of the first ten refers to the ancient Assyrians as the "Assyrian people", [7].
What's the conclusion of this? As shown, Syriacs is the most common name, and the most unambigous, while Assyrian people clearly is ambigous. Therefore a move of this article to Assyrian people would be against Wikipedia policies and therefore not an option. The TriZ (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

TriZ just look at what you searched ... You Searched "Assyrian People" with 12 400 ... now that goes against "Syriac People" with 6 080 so "Assyrian People" has more hits. Then you search "Syriacs" ... why are you making that against "Assyrian People" ... That makes no sense, "Syriacs" should go against "Assyrians". Also under the Title "Syriacs", I am included as well as all Assyrian, Maronites, and some Indians (who do not share any ethnic relations with the rest of us). There is already a Syriac Christian page on wikipedia, this should be strickly about the Ethnic Group Malik Danno (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly... Malik Danno, Syriac Christians do not comprise a homogenous ethnic group, as it also includes the "Syrian Christians" of India.

Secondly... TriZ, do you understand my rationale, whereby I suggested that we need to first equate the terms Syriac and Assyrian in order to have an unbiased Google search? That means, compare "Syriac people" with "Assyrian people", "Syriacs" with "Assyrians". If you eliminate one of the terms, for any reason, you must eliminate its counterpart. Furthermore, as you investigate the hits for "Assyrians" further, you will see that half, if not most, of them pertain to the modern Assyrians. Half of 1 million is 500,000; that's much more than the 25,800 hits from a Google search on "Syriacs". Go to any results page; chances are, this trend will remain consistent. Pick some random numbers (for example: 13, 28, 46, 50) and test my hypothesis.

Thirdly... Iraqi, can you provide a direct link if possible? At any rate, the US and Swedish censuses are not representative of other nations. What about Canada's 2006 census and Russia's census, both of which list Assyrian to the exclusion of Syriac and Chaldean? Or the 2006 Australian Census, which has Assyrian/Chaldean to the exclusion of Syriac? We should not base such an issue on the censuses of two countries. If we are going to use national censuses as a basis for deciding the name of this article (which, arguably, is ill-advised), let's get some more countries represented.--Šarukinu (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Malik, please disregard my comment directed towards you. I think you were making the same point, but I just misunderstood what you said at first. --Šarukinu (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I do understand how you think, but that's not how google searchs are done, you are searching on the most common name, the most common name is evidently Syriacs. Even though Assyrians has more hits, Assyrians is not an option since it firstly refers to the ancient Assyrians. I mean if we were doing it that way, we would also have to do google searchs on Syrians and Syrian people. The TriZ (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I have just demonstrated how the most common name is Assyrians. If half of the over 1 million hits refers to ancient Assyrians, to whom does the other half refer? I just laid it out in plain English, that even when you account for the 500,000 out of 1,000,000 hits that refer to ancient Assyrians, "Assyrians" still appears to be the most common term used to refer to this ethnic group. I'm afraid you jumped to your earlier conclusion a little too hastily when you said that a move of this article to Assyrian people would be against Wikipedia policies and therefore not an option, seeing as you based this on 10 hits. Check out the remaining results pages, as I advised, and you will see that your conclusion and suggestion do not have merit. --Šarukinu (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You're clearly misunderstanding me, when speaking of common name, you are speaking of the future name of the title of this article. Again, you can't have this article named Assyrians since it's ambigous and in an encyclopedia, Assyrians should refer to the ancient Assyrians. So the optionss left is Syriac people, Assyrian people and Syriacs. By these, Syriacs is the most common and the one that's the most unambigous. The TriZ (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The TriZ, This page is directed to be an Ethnic Peoples page. Syriac has never been termed as an ethnicity until the 1950s When the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch changed his peoples nation. Even then Syriac was not an ethnicity, but "Aramean" was. Syriac should be kept to what it is ... a Christian umbrella denomination, which includes which includes many christian denominations and many ethnic groups within it. Malik Danno (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Malik, if you don't have anything good to say, then just don't say anything at all. I, and others, have repeatadly told you to read up on what ethnicity means. I have already told you several times that Syriac is an ethnicity, while Aramean is not. The TriZ (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Is "Protestant" an ethnicity, is "Catholic" an ethnicity, is "Sunni" an ethnicity? Malik Danno (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a saying in Swedish that goes, "Argumentera aldrig med idioter, de kommer dra ner dig till deras nivå och slå dig med erfarenhet.". Which rougly translates to English as, "Never argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.". Now I never called you a idiot and I hope I don't have to in the future either, however, I will stop arguing with you about this. The TriZ (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

TriZ, now you're misunderstanding the purpose of the Google search. Its purpose was not to find the best possible candidate for the article's title, per se. The reason we did the Google search was to settle whether Assyrian is more commonly used in the English language than is Syriac when referring to the ethnic group. We have shown that Assyrian is most common via both Google searches and other academic journal database searches. Based on these queries we have performed, and thus in accordance with Wikipedia policy, the most valid name for this article is Assyrian people. "Assyrians" would redirect to "Assyrian people" just as before (although either one is viable, "Assyrians" may be more likely than "Assyrian people" to refer to "ancient Assyrians").--Šarukinu (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Then we first need to agree on the purpose of the Google search. Also I don't get a million hits on Assyrians, I get around 700k, and which the hits in the first page only adresses the ancient Assyrians (yes, there is probably some things about the modern in other pages than the first, but it's not likely to be 50-50 as you said). I still believe the purpose of the Google search is to find the most common title for the article. If we were going to search on the most used name in the way you want, we would have to do searchs on Syrians and Syrian people aswell (a mission impossible) since Syriacs even today are often refered to as Syrians. The TriZ (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
(triz) What's the conclusion of this? As shown, Syriacs is the most common name, and the most unambigous, while Assyrian people clearly is ambigous. " - Triz I dont think you understand how a Google test works. You can't compare "Syriacs" with "Assyrian people." Thats not how it works. You can compare Assyrian people only with Syriac people. You can compare Syriacs only with Assyrians. But you can't compare Assyrians with results of Syriac people or vice-versa. You will generally get more results for only one word, like Assyrians or Syriacs, then two words together, like Assyrian people and Syriac people, since two words together is more specific. We don't know how much of "Assyrians" is a reference to modern Assyrians, o we can't compare the results of "Syriacs" to anything. It is probably a 3 to 1 ratio favoring Assyrians, but of course it would take counting all google results, so that is out of the question. As you have shown already with the results you have put up, Assyrian poeple is by far more common then Syriac people. Not only that, but Syriac people is also a reference to non-middle eastern Syriac speaking people as well, such as Maronites,M Malarkas, and Indians. The same thing with "Syriacs" as well. You can't take it into account because it includes people that are not about the subject. And of course the same with Assyrians as well, where it can be a reference to either ancient or modern people. So in conclusion, you've proved that Assyrian people is the most common term used. Iraqi (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you guys google search "Modern Assyrians" and "Modern Syriacs" that way The TriZ will be pleased cause it will talk about modern not ancient assyrians, and the rest of us will be pleased because the searches will be more fair (both having modern infront of the name). Malik Danno (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already done that as you will see below, they were dismissed as biased, childish, naive, by a user who fits those descriptions in their entirety. Look them over
  • Please be aware these searches were done a few weeks ago so the numbers may have changed slightly, regardless of that Assyrian still remains the predominat term via these searches.

Here are the searches I found although Google is not the deciding factor in academia.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/iz.html

  • ==ETHNIC GROPS WORLDWIDE== no mention of Syriac

http://books.google.com/books?id=uwi-rv3VV6cC&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=political+handbook+of+the+middle+east+assyrian&source=web&ots=AFH452RuMY&sig=Nd6NJAZi1fg2QZ8B-RGWvTLLgGA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA232,M1

  • According to the ==POLITCIAL HANDBOOK OF THE MIDDLE EAST==
  • The Political Dictionary of the Modern Middle East[1] defines Assyrians as, “Remnants of the people of ancient Mesopotamia, succeeding the Sumero-Akkadians and the Babylonians as one continuous civilization. They are among the first nations who accepted Christianity. They belong to one of the four churches: the Chaldean Uniate, the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. Due to the ethnic-political conflict in the Middle East, they are better known by these ecclesiastical designations. The Assyrians use classical Syriac in their liturgies while the majority of them speak and write a modern dialect of this language. They constitute the third largest ethnic group in Iraq with their communities in Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Russia and Armenia. Today they remain stateless and great numbers of them have left their homeland and settled in Western Europe, the United States and Australia.”

Ninevite (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


Music II

Please stop the unconstructive edit warring in this article, and go and build the Assyrian/Syriac folk music article for folk music and the Syriac sacral music one for church music. --dab (𒁳) 12:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete half of the section on the music section? I think its very important.... Malik Danno (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

it was off topic, discussing ancient Mesopotamian music. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not off topic, its right on topic. This section is about Assyrian Music ... and it talked about Assyrian Music! So from what time constitutes us to talk about something ... 1900+ 1500+ 0+ ... What was there before, and it talks about the evolution of Assyrian music, I think that is vital in this section. Malik Danno (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dab. Perhaps include a line preceding the music section, such as: See also: ancient Assyrian music, or something along those lines. The music section in this article should be specific to that of the modern ethnic group. --Šarukinu (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well compare it to other "blank People" pages, in those you see in all the sections, they talk about the ancient (subject of topic), then talk more in detail about modern uses. This is how it should be. Listen, you have to realize this ... in Dab's attempt to be politically correct, he is trying to delete all mentions of the Ancient Assyrians, I feel this is wrong, because to modern Assyrians the Ancient Assyrians are held to a very high regard. There should be a section talking about the past music, and more detail put in modern music. Malik Danno (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the modern Assyrians - any discussion of their ancestors should be limited to a very brief section at most, for example a couple of sentences. This is just to give the reader a brief idea of the progression across time. Modern Assyrian music is very different from ancient Assyrian music, and Assyriologists' knowledge of the latter is very limited. Thus, there isn't sufficient knowledge to claim that modern Assyrian music directly descended from ancient Assyrian music. Remember, we must present the closest thing to truth, not what we believe or want to believe. If you can find academic sources that suggest that modern Assyrian music has continuity over the past four to five thousand years, then by all means include the information in the article and provide the respective sources. --Šarukinu (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To modern Assyrians the Ancient Assyrians are held to a very high regard" -- nobody is trying to censor this, we have a full article about it, at Assyrianism. What you need to understand is that Assyria, Assyrianism and Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people are three distinct topics which may be mutually linked, but which must not be conflated. --dab (𒁳) 13:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Very well put... distinct, yet mutually linked. --Šarukinu (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thats fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Danno (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

my take on the History of the Issue

ok bear with me now this will be long.

  • Note in what I'm about to say Assyrian means ALL assyrians (Chaldeans and Syriacs), If I want to talk about the rest then i will say Chaldeans and/or Syriacs (not Syriac Christianity but members of teh Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Church)*

After we accepted Christianity we adopted the Greek form of suraye as appose to Assyrian. Time passed by

My point starts during the last 300 years. All Assyrians called themselves Suraye at this point, but we did not call ourselves Suraye (Assyrian)/Suryoyo (Turyoyo) as an ethnic group (even though it stated as that) but as a religious group (members of the Syriac Christianity). All Syriac Chrisitans called themselves Suraye/Suryoyo at this point. Note, at this time nationality had little to no part in day to day life in Middle East (this can be seen as even to Arabs they saw the Ottoman Sultan as their legitimate leader as the decendent of the Caliphate, and yet in 1900s the arabs and even the Turks would rebel from that leadership). So at this point for all Assyrians nationality was not important, rather Religion (Christianity) was the key thing that we held in high regard. When Westerners would come we would describe ourselves as Suraye/Suryoyo because that was the most vital part of our lives ... yet we knew that we were Assyrians from the Ancient Assyrians, but that just wasn't that important to us.

It was not until the Europeans came to Middle East (missionaries etc.) that nationalism was introduced! Europe had gone through Nationalism in the beginning to mid 19th century. Before Europe went through nationalism they were just like Middle East in late 19th century. In Europe Religion was much more important than nationality. This can be seen with many Religious Wars which engulfed the European Continent. German Lutherans would ally themselves with Swedish Lutherans against their own German Catholics! before nationalism in Europe Religion was the defining figure not nationality/ethnicity. After nationalism came to Europe Religion was set aside beside Nationality/ethnicity, this can be seen with the unification of All Italians and Germans and all other European peoples without caring about their religious affiliations (sure there are some exceptions ... such as German kulturkapf but the general trend is as follows). So when this nationalism came to Middle East the same trend occurs. You see the Muslim world reject their Sultan (their Caliph) under the Young Turk movement which emphasized on Turkish Nationalism, so now we see in the case of turks that they went against their religious leader (as he liked to assume he was) for a national movement. The young Turk nationalist movement would try to centralize the Ottoman Empire under Istanbul. Then you see Arabs come about and start rebelling against Turks for an Arab Nationalist movement. You see kurds start from persecuting Christians for the sake or religious differences, to persecuting Assyrians for the sake of National differences. You see Armenian Nationalism start and that nationalism would justify rebellion against the central turkish government. So this rise of nationalism was evident throughout middle east, and just as in Europe Nationalism brought about nation/race to the forefront in front of religion the same would occur in Middle East.

Now how does this relate to Assyrians?

Well, as I stated above, We use to call ourselves Suraye/Suryoyo (Syriac Christian) more than we called ourselves Assyrian because Religion was more important to our ancestors. However when Europeans came, we adopted their nationalism and our nation/ethnicity began to replace our religion as being the most important aspect of their lives. So when nationalism came we began to call ourselves with our nationality rather than our religious denomination. ALL Assyrians, even before Europeans came knew we were descendants of Ancient Assyrians, but we just never raised that to such importance. Now that nationalism came to us, we raised our nationality/ethnicity. All Assyrians called themselves Assyrians, Even the leadership of the Syriac Orthodox Church!! There are MANY MANY examples where the Syriac Orthodox Church Patriarch and lay people call themselves Assyrian from 1850s-1950s. Now The Church of the East took up that part of nationalism and incorporated it in its liturgies (as seen with some of the prayers). The Syriac Orthodox Church was very involved with their Assyrian nationality, but they began adopting an Aramean nationality because the patriarch realized that with the rise of Assyrian nationalism, the power of the church on its members would be weakened (just as some may say is occurring today with the ACOE).

If you are going to debate what I said I ask you to read these two articles ... [8] [9] once again, if you are going to critique what I just said then read these sources first [10][11], now I provided you with the same links twice so there should be no excuses as to why you will not read the articles Malik Danno (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Malik Dano how can you even use christiansofiraq as a source?. There are MANY MANY examples where the Syriac Orthodox Church Patriarch and lay people call themselves Assyrian from 1850s-1950s. No sources are telling us that they called themselves for "Assyrians". Maybe you mean othoroye? Did you know that the term "othoroye" does not mean "Assyrian". it refers to an inhabitant from the city of Othur (ninve). "ALL Assyrians, even before Europeans came knew we were descendants of Ancient Assyrians, but we just never raised that to such importance." Those who started to call themselves for "assyrians" never "knew they were assyrians". It was an researcher who incorrectly believed that he found remainders of the assyrian empire. And Suryoye is not a religios designation. Its like saying that Syrian is a religios designation. Suryoye = Syrian (today Syriac). HAve you ever read hymns of Mor afrem? We writes about our people as "Amo Oromoyo" = "the Aramean people". IF you are gonna write an article like that, your article will never be taken seriously, even by Assyrians. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Did you know that the term "othoroye" does not mean "Assyrian". Please tell us how to say Assyrian then?!
Yeah, we have heard the theory about the text in one of the churches in Midyat. That "Afrem I Othuroyo" means "Afrem I from Mosul". Even if that is true it wouldn't mean that "Othuroyo" doesn't mean Assyrian. Shmayo (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Assyrian does not have a word in the Syriac language, since its a term wich came up 60 years ago, all assyrians use the term othoroye as assyrian, which is wrong. there has not been any "assyrian" word in our language. The people has always been known at first Arameans (Oromoye) then Syrians (Syriacs, Suryoye). There is a a source telling us that the people from iraq called them selves for "suryoye othuroye". Many assyrians thinks that the "Suryoye othuroye" means "Assyrians", which is very wrong. Suryoye othoroye means syriacs from ninve/mosul. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I was willing to overlook your previous faults and biases to cooperate with you on future articles, but this time you've crossed the line with your outrageous claims. Please answer these questions:

1. Can you provide academic sources for your claims (specifically, your claim that there is no word for "Assyrian" in the Aramaic language)?

2. What was Assyria called in the Aramaic version of the bible (the Old and New Testaments)?

3. How did the name "Assyria" just disappear from the Aramaic language, when Aramaic was an official language (alongside Akkadian) of the Assyrian empire (especially during the time of King Sharru-kinu II)?

4. Assyrian nationalism had its origins around 150 years ago, in part due to British influence. What did the Assyrians call themselves between 150 years ago and 60 years ago? How did the term "Assyrian" come up only 60 years ago?

There is no way Othur could mean Mosul, since Othur most directly translates to Atur in East Assyrian, which is cognate with Aššur (Ashur) in Akkadian. Mosul contains the ruins of Nineveh (Ninve), which lay on the east bank of the Tigris river. The city of Aššur is over 100km south of Mosul (and Nineveh), and there's no etymological relation between Othur/Atur/Ashur and Mosul/Nineveh/Ninve. Please check your sources.

I sincerely hope you are not drawing this from aramnaharaim.org. I read the article on that website, where the author said that in the Aramaic literature the city of Mosul is called in Aramaic “Othur”, that is to say “Assur”. He provided no reference at all (let alone an academic one) for this claim, but regardless it makes no sense. If this is true, and the city of Mosul was referred to as Othur in Aramaic literature, there is no doubt that this was due to the conscious knowledge of it's link to Assyria, as Mosul contained the ruins of Nineveh, the last capital of the Assyrian empire. This would lend even more support to the continuity of Assyrian consciousness, if anything. --Šarukinu (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
ArameanSyriac you said: "No sources are telling us that they called themselves for "Assyrians". Maybe you mean othoroye? Did you know that the term "othoroye" does not mean "Assyrian"." ... which proves that you have not read the two sources that I have asked you to read. If you are willing to take about 10 minutes from your time and read the articles then you will see that they infact call themselves ASSYRIAN spelled A-s-s-y-r-i-a-n, not Othuroyo, not armanoyo or other stuff, but strictly Assyrian. This is seen with new imgrants to USA, the Patriarch in the League of nations meetings, and various census.
I ask everyone else not to respond to ArameanSyriac in this section until he has read the two articles provided above. Until he has done so, I ask the rest of you not to respond to his claims. Malik Danno (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S. the articles also states how the term Assyrian was used before Europeans came to Middle East ... By members of the Syriac Orthodox Church!! Once again, read the article and find out for yourself Malik Danno (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh for Gods sake, no one wants to read your damn site. Why? Because it's a site with no academic references what so ever and that's not based on any academic base, it's based on conspiracy theories and nothing else, there is a simple and logical answer to everything in that sad site of yours which only purpose is to manipulate weak persons who falls for such shit. If you check Garzo's talkpage archieves, you will find all these answers. It's sad you made this brilliant man go away... The TriZ (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that nobody should be using such websites as christianofiraq.com as references. This is equivalent to using aramnaharaim.org as a reference. To everyone, please stick to academic sources from now on.

That aside, TriZ, do you agree with AramaeanSyriac's claims? --Šarukinu (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Sarukinu, and no I can't really respond to that, since I basically don't know enough about that. But I think I may have read something about this in Garzo's talkpage some time ago that was really interesting, you should try check his archive. The TriZ (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Listen, I would agree with you that Christiansofiraq.com is not a perfectly reliable site, but does that mean that EVERYTHING which is mentioned in the site is incorrect. The TriZ and Sarkinu please tell me once where I said that christiansofiraq.com is a reliable site. The articles do have references and there is enough proof in the pictures alone, the articles show primary documents and discussions made by controversial members who we are discussing here. Once again The TriZ you have failed to discuss the articles ... you always go off topic, or just not respond at all. What I want answered is not the reliability of the site, but the articles themselves. it just happens to be on christiansofiraq.com ... but the articles are still the articles ... Now i know what you are going to respond with, another discourse saying how I sound very negative, or changing the subject by continuing to talk about the website, or anything else just to avoid dealing with the articles.
When you decide you will not discuss the articles ... will you discuss these articles by Mor Afram Barsom to the League of Nations. [12][13]. Once again please stop changing the subjects and/or ignoring the contents of these articles. Malik Danno (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Malik, if you do not think it is a reliable site, then why are you using it as a reference and asking people to trust it? We are supposed to be referencing academic sources. And TriZ, for anybody to claim that there is no word for "Assyrian" in the Syriac or Aramaic language is plain ludicrous. That's the kind of extreme propagandist garbage you would expect to see on Aramnaharaim.org. I am still waiting patiently for AramaeanSyriac to respond to my questions. --Šarukinu (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sarukinu, and I have never said that either. Obviously Assyrian translates to Othoroye, but I'm pretty sure that in a historian context it can also mean different things, for example someone from Mosul. And that is what I said you should look for in Garzo's archive, maybe you have read it before, but he wrote something very interesting about that. The TriZ (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The TriZ, why do you never want to discuss the issue itself? This name issue will only be solved through discussion from all sides, yet you are unwilling to have a proper discussion about the issue. If you have certain points against the 2 articles and the 2 articles from Mor Afram Barsom then say them. I am providing you these sources because you have denied that Syriacs ... and your Patriarchs ever called themselves Assyrian, and you asked me for sources. yet when I provide you with what you want (sources) and ask for a discussion, you ignore them, discount them, or divert the subject. Once again if you see anything wrong with the articles I have provided then say them ... or else in the future do not tell me to provide sources for you which you will be unwilling to discuss. Malik Danno (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
So I take it that User:ArameanSyriac and User:TheTriZ have to rebuttals against the 2 articles on christiansofiraq.com and the 2 letters from Mor Afram Barsom to the League of Nations. Malik Danno (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Not really, just ignored it, plus I already think most answers have been given, you just can't accept the truth about your conspiracy theories. The TriZ (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can see that you have ignored it, of course there is a reason for that. And no you have not provided any arguments disproving those 2 articles and 2 letters (except the Jerusalem convent, which is only 2 lines). Please The TriZ, entertain me and 'disprove' the articles and letters. Malik Danno (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice to the user above me, DONT WASTE YOUR TIME TALKING TO ARAMAEAEAEAEAENIST FANATIC AGENDIZER He is unable to have discussions because of his cerebral chronic disease. His mind will not allow himself to engage in scholarly debate, it is infused in his psychological mental disorder. He needs medical help serioursly, although it maybe too late. There is a saying in Aramaic EDDEE MATENAH GOO POOMOOH so he stops spitting non sense around like a deliquent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.17.92.37 (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

progress

what do you say, the page is beginning to look acceptable and readable. What we have at present is a comparatively modest and short article, but at least it takes into account all the notorious issues that have prevented progress in the past, and we've moved past the wild pov-fork phase. With the worst contention out of the way, we should now begin to build actual content. I.e., if you can forget about the naming issue for five minutes, try to add discussion of actual music to the "Music" section, discussion of actual food to a "Cuisine" section, and focus on building sub-articles such as History of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people (mind Wikipedia:Main article fixation). This way, we'll have a decent article on this troubled people in due time after all.--dab (𒁳) 10:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above, we have spent too much energy into the articles name, let us instead work more on the article itself, and then worry about the appropriate name later on. The nameing issue will be solved eventually, until then let us continue the work here. For the assyrian cuisine perhaps we can add various types of assyrian foods such as dulma, baklava, nazook, lavasha, hooroosh, lobeeyah, and even toursheeheh. The names above are in assyrian, im not sure what the equivalent is in english, but I can look it up later. I have recently purchased an assyrian cook book that is filled with hundreds of exotic foods; perhaps I can add some of those here later on Ninevite (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Also See" section

I feel that there are way too many unrelated topics in our "Also See" section and we need to better organize it, take out the irrelevant ones which are not so closely related to the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people, and organize them better with subheadings. Any thoughts on that? Malik Danno (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to organize our See Also area by putting them into categories such Political Organizations, Langauges, Relgious Bodies, News Stations and so on. It makes it far more readable and organized to do so. Ninevite (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what it is so far:

And these are the changes I want to make so far ... any disagreements?

|col2 =

Malik Danno (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Some users seems to misunderstand the policies here in Wikipedia, or most likely, doesn't even know about them. What you have to understand Malik, before you start running around complaining about me, is that I can edit as much as I like without asking you. I don't need permission by you to edit, ok? I don't need to make an discussion entry and explain my edit for you, for whichever uncontroversial edit I do. So how do you motivate your reverts of my edits where I remove your duplicates in the "See also"-section? The TriZ (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I will do the changes I have posted above, if there are any arguments against them then post them here. The difference with you is that you are deleting the but adding/moving others as you please with no other consent. And your caim that this is Wikipedia and you can do things without consent can be said by anyone, sure, you are allowed to do whatever you want, but so do I and I choose to undo your changes. To avoid this a discussion must be made and a consensus must be reached, both of which you are unwilling to do. Malik Danno (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You alone doesn't make up for a consensus. I've changed your version cause it is clearly biased, for example, why removing Arameans and Maronites and keep Assyrians? Why have the Assyrian organisations at the begining? Discussions with you are meaningless since you have no interest of listening to the counter-part. The TriZ (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

good sign, you are beginning to discuss before changing sections :D. And it is not me who is changing things, last time I checked it was you who started adding/moving terms in the Also See section ... just look at the history. Also pertaining to your claim to add 'Arameans' and 'Maronites'. I feel that Arameans should not be added because there is little relationships between Arameans and Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People. Sure we took them over in ancient times, but we took over much of the middle east ... does that alone mean we can put Elimites and Egyptians. Also we did adopt the Aramaic Language, but there is already a link dealing with aramaic language in the also see section. Third part is that some in the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People believe they are Arameans, but is that enough to put it in the also see section? If we put Arameans, then we would also have to put 'Chaldeans' 'Arabs' (as many call themselves arabs) and 'Phoenicians' as all those are identities that Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriacs believe they are. Also, about Maronites, I don't think they should be inlcuded because this is an ethnic group page, and Maronites are not in the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac ethnic group. They are Syriac Christians, but so are Malankara christians, so should they be included. Many Maronites believe they are Phoenicians not Assyrians, and there isn't that many scholars to back up that they are Assyrians. Also of all the identities the Assyrian identity is the most prominent, as ALL members of the Assyrian/Ancient Churches of the East, most Chaldean Catholic Church members, and many Syriac Catholic/Orthodox Church members follow that identity, so that should be the first of the identities. Anyone disagree with what I have said above then please post what you disagree with below so we reach a conclusion. Malik Danno (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And a terrible entry from you, once again. "we" took over in ancient times? Get over yourself, some people here are actually trying to write an encyclopedia. Not a sciene-fiction story to pleasure your nationalistic fantasies. The TriZ (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that the Ancient Assyrians never took over the Aramean city-states? Also, why are you once again changing the subject. I'm beginning to think that you change the subject on purpose, stay on topic please and discuss what I stated above is wrong. Malik Danno (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Malik, I agree with the edits you proposed above - they are reasonable and logical, and I see no reason why those edits should not be enforced. The ancient Assyrians did conquer the "Aramaean" city states, roughly from the time of Ashurnasirpal to the fall of the empire. But what I think TriZ was referring to was the way you referred to the ancient Assyrians in first person (i.e. we). Let us try and remain objective, even in discussion. That being said, I do not really see any harm in linking to the Aramaeans page. They compose part of our lineage as well, and many Assyrians identify with the ancient Aramaeans to some extent.

But if we are to decide what goes into the see also section, we must entertain some important questions. First of all, what specific purpose does it serve? Secondly, what information can users obtain? Finally, how broad or (conversely) how specific should it be? --Šarukinu (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let ous be clear, this article is about the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. The Assyrian part is only a miniorty of the greater group, the Syriacs believe they are the decendents of the Arameans for example, so how can it be motivated to link to the ancient Assyrians and not to the Arameans? The TriZ (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes under "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" do you see Aramean anywhere? Assyrian is by far the most used identity by the people. I will say it again All members of the Ancient/Assyrian Church of the East use the Assyrian identity, many (I would argue majority) of Chaldeans use the Assyrian identity, and many Syriac Orthodox/Chatholic members use the Assyrian identity. Only some of the members of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic members use the Aramean identity and none from Chaldean Church and Churches of the East. If Aramean should be used then i endorse the use of Arabs as well. There are many Chaldeans and Syriacs who call themselves Arabs. Here in Canada a substantial Majority of Syriacs call themseves Arabs, with a tiny minority who call themselves Assyrians (with my help of course :D). If the Aramean identity should be endorsed then you have to consider the Chaldean, Arab and Phoenician identities as well. Malik Danno (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you live in Canada and I in Europe, I most likely know a little bit more than you do about what people call themselves in Europe and in the Middle East (where I've been and where I have many relatives), but you see, that doesn't really matter. You know why? (probably not) ...so read WP:NOR. The TriZ (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
You bring up a good point, you want to include Arameans because there are very small amounts of sources pertaining to Syriacs being Arameans right? Well, that being said, should be also include "Kurds" in there because on Dr. Mehrdad R. Izady's claim that Modern Assyrians are really kurds? Should we include "Arabs" due to the fact that Saddam Hussien, Tariq Aziz and many Bath Scholars saying that Assyrians are Arabs (brought on by arabization process)? Should we also include "Jews" because Asahel Grant published a report that states that Assyrians were in fact the 10 lost tribes of Israel? and Don't get me started with self claiming 'experts' in the Chaldean camp who post articles about how Chaldeans are from Ancient Chaldea (lol). By the way these "theories" or "claims" are still being used today and some still believe they are true. If Arameans will be used on your basis, then why not Kurds, Arabs, Chaldeans and Jews? Malik Danno (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Haven't I already told you about that saying that goes; "Never argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.". Now check this source, [14]. The TriZ (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Population Numbers

The population numbers of this article are wrong. on the whole world the assyrian/syriac people are 9-20 million because just the syriac otodox church allone got 5 million members http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Orthodox_Church and the Maronite ortodox church got 12 million members watch here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronite_Church. in the article says that it is through the United States only 80 000 are Assyrians/chaldean/syriac. but in Detroit alone, there are 113 000 watch here: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081113/METRO/811130395&imw=Y

can someone correct this please, otherwise the article is wrong. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvis214 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the demographics in this page are too low, my figure would roughly be around 3 - 5 million Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriacs in the world. You have to realize that not all members of the Syriac Orthodox Church are ethnically similar, there are well over 1 million Syriac Orthodox Indians in the world. Also, it is debated, but Maronites should not be included with this ethnic group, because there isn't much scholarly backing behind that. Maronites would most likely be descendants of the Ancient Phoenicians, but I know that some here will debate me on that one. All in all, the population in this should be from 3 - 5 million, and the figure you posted (9-10 million) should pertain to Syriac Christianity not the Assyrian ethnicity. Malik Danno (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


ok i undersand what do you mean. but can someone correct these numbers 0.3 to 3 million are too low. i think it should be 5-6 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.81.126 (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have sources stating those figures then by all means post them, cause these ones being used right now are shit. Malik Danno (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


here can you see that, in swedish wiki article http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrier

and the population number from the usa are wrong there are more tahn 80 000 assyrian in the usa in detroit there are more tahn 113 000 watch here http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081113/METRO/811130395&imw=Y how can it be that in the whole usa just 80 000 assyrian live when just in detroit more taht 113 000 lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.139.13 (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

about the Swedish article, they use UNPO, now I have asked this to be used as a source and not surprising, whatever I endorse the magnificent user The TriZ must be against, so he started complaining about the source and once again not surprising the triumphant admin Dab followed The TriZ's command and it never was used, instead we are using sources which make absolutely no sense. Also, you are right about the USA population of Assyrians, my best estimate would be that there are about 300 000 Assyrians/Chaldean/Syriacs in USA alone, using the source you posted above pertaining to 113 000 assyrians in Detroit, and using this source [15] we see that there are 80 000 Assyrians in Chicago. that amounts to about 200 000 just in Detroit and Chicago ... California has a sizable population as well and rest of America I would assume about 50 000 - 100 000. But the problem is that the census said 83 000 and that is the most reliable source (government). Census' are fictitious because not many people in the Assyrian community do them. In Canada for example, I would estimate that there are 7000 assyrians in Toronto and surrounding areas only, yet the Canadian census states there are only 7000+. All in all I am in favour of changing the population figures. Malik Danno (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


why do naot anybody correct these numbers when if tehy are wrong.How can I correct these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.139.13 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

well to access the template that the population figures are on go to search area and type "Tempate: Assyrian ethnicity" and hit go. The template will appear, then you can click edit this page to edit it. But my advice is not to edit anything just yet, first try to get the approval of some members involved. If you are going to change it you must provide good sources for your changes, and if/when someone undoes your changes i suggest you comment on his/her page and ask him/her to particiate in this discussion. You state your point, he/she states his/her point and hopefully everyone comes to a resolution. Malik Danno (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


I think that the numbers presented in wiki are absolutely false and I think that the popullation figures are blown way out of proportion. Assyrian was considered a dead language because there weren't enough speakers. as far as churches go, how many churches are there that can say that they are assyrian churches? I think that the us is somehow making assyrian numbers 100 to 200 times higher than they actually are. It's like the Serbs claiming that they have over a million people in bosnia and yet they don't have 50 churches in the entire state. There is manipulation going on and it seems the eastern orthodox people are rather good at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.146.238 (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Names

I suggest we include a section in the names section which includes the ancient Assyrian names which are still used by predominately of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. There are various different types of names which assyrians use. Christian/Biblical names as used by 'Nestorians', Chaldeans and Syriacs (stated), Arabic influenced names as used by many Chaldeans, and Syriacs (not mentioned) and ancient Assyrian names as used by majority of 'Nestorians', and some Chaldeans and Syriacs (not included). So for now I suggest we add the names used under arabic influence, and ancient assyrian influence.

I support the following sentence which was included not that long ago but was undone by a member with no explanation:

"The continuous usage of old Assyrian names such as Sargon, Ashur, Ramsen, Ninos, Sanharib, Ninurta in family names still to this day illustrates Assyrian identity continuity over time. [1]"

Are there any objections to my proposal? Malik Danno (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is relevant since we have an entire section entitled Names. Some Assyrian names I have come across to alot are Shamiram, Belus, Sharokina, and so on. My spelling may not be correct but I think you can figure it out. I'll do a search regarding some more assyrian names, perhaps I can come up with some additional ones we have'nt already mentioned. Ninevite (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link I found regarding Assyrian Names Project here [16] and [17] and male names [18] and femal names [19] and [20] . Some of these links I have provided tend to overlap but at least each link provides some names not used by the others. Perhaps you can take a combinaiton of all them. I suggest we only use the most popular names amongst assyrians, and try to even it out with male and female names although that will be a little more difficult. Ninevite (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there any objections to my proposal? Yes, I have one. We need to somewhat specify when the first use of such names as Sargon, Ramsen, and Ashur were documented in the history of the Assyrian people. I checked the reference you provided, but all I found was a similar sentence to the one you provided: The continuous usage of old Assyrian names such as Sargon, Ramsen, and Ninos in family life until today illustrates Assyrian continuity over the ages. This author didn't provide any reference for this claim, and thus using his book as a reference will not suffice. --Šarukinu (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, look at the names section, there is only 1 source provided, the rest is just written without any sources, why aren't you complaining about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Danno (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Old Assyrian names are not "still" used, they are again used, since the 19th century, as an expression of Assyrianism. I have no problem with a discussion of commonly given names, but can we please stop these silly games. --dab (𒁳) 20:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That might be true as well dab, I mean it would make sense, but even having said that, the assyrian names which deal with ancient assyrians should still be mentioned in the names section (because they are popular), and not put anything about if they did infact continue or were used again in the 19th century until we have more sources etc. Malik Danno (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What happened?

Was not this article supposed to be split into two articles? AramaeanSyriac (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

you have only been given patient explanations of why not about two dozen times, so it is understandable that you shouldn't have absorbed them. --dab (𒁳) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Last I checked, most of the votes were in favour of splitting the article - and we gave even more reasons why it should be moved/split-up. Although I agree that we should divert our attention towards improving the article first, rest assured that this issue will be re-addressed in the not-too-distant future. --Šarukinu (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have improved an article about the Syriac people, whith many sources. Just waiting for the article to get splitted. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not getting splitted. We won't get anywhere with it getting splitted. We will try to improve the current article and work for the unity among our own nation. We are not living in the first century, it's actually the 21th century guys. Don't be that backward and stubborn, it won't get us far. You can add your information about the Arameans or Syriacs in the article and improve it with that fact.--Yohanun (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

wow, a voice of reason. I salute you, sir. --dab (𒁳) 21:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People (also known as...

state your points here please before changing anything else. Malik Danno (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're the one undoing unmotivated. State your case. The TriZ (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Well you want to put 'Aramean' and an also known term for Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People, but that is not the case. a certain percentage of the Syriac population might identify themselves as 'Aramean' but Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriacs are not known as Arameans ... you can't put the term that is used for a small minority of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people to become the term that is 'also known as' for all those people Malik Danno (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure I can, you don't think I can provide sources where the people is refered to as the Aramaeans? In Germany the people is called Aramaeans (Aramäer), only that is enough, because of the size of the population in Germany. The TriZ (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Are all ... members of the Church of the East, Chaldean Church, and Syriac Churches called Arameans or only 1 of the churches listed? You cannot say that all Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People are also known as 'Aramean' if they are not (and only a minority of them is) Malik Danno (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are sources that consider all Syriacs Arameans (The Forgotten Genocide, for example, but there are also East Syriac sources that refer to the group in its entirety as Arameans), just like there are those that use the names Syriacs, Syrians, Suryoye, and Assyrians for the entire group. The only ethnonym you can quite safely regard as referring to a subgroup of the Syriacs is Chaldeans, which is -- as far as I know -- exclusively used to refer to the Chaldean Catholics. The other names are (disputedly) used for the entire group, and also for subgroups. For instance, some West Syriacs refer to themselves as Syriacs (or Süryani, or some other variant), whereas they call the East Syriacs "Assyrians" (Aşuri, etc.). --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Neither Chaldeans nor 'Nestorians' endorse the Aramean nationality ... and only a certain percentage of Syriacs do as well. In my opinion it is not very relevant. Can you provide me with sources that call Chaldeans/Assyrians/Syriacs ALL under the Aramean people. Don't give me something that you have confused as them speaking Aramaic or something else like that. Malik Danno (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The question is not whether there is widespread support for any of the terms, but whether the names are used to refer to the group or not. I already gave you one source (Sebastien de Courtois, The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, The Last Arameans), and on http://www.aramnaharaim.org/English/Testimonies_Scholars_Church_of_Antioch.htm you can find a number of East Syrian (from the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Church of the East) sources that acknowledge the Aramean heritage of the group. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Benne, in what world do you live in? Nobody in their right mind in the middle east today call themselves Aramaya. Your non-academic aramnahrain site takes ancient text out of context. All this crap about naming issue and identity crisis has its own pags in Assyrian naming dispute. The likes of you have ruined anything Assyrian related on Wiki, including this page. Nothing makes sense now, and if a person completly read this, it would leave him very confused. Iraqi (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You might live in a cave, but Benne seems to live in what the rest of the world calls reality. The TriZ (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You soldiers of northern Europe are really funny. I actually live in Bet Nahrain. I actually talk to the people here. Last week, I visited Bakhdeda and Karamlesh during the elections. They only two Syrian Orthodox/Catholic towns in Iraq in case you didn't know. I know it hurts deep down in your soul to know that I did not come across a single person in these two towns that considered themselves "Aramean". Its ashame Wikipedia is tolerating misguided people from aramnahrain.org to take over Assyrian related articles and totally trashing the with false information. This project will never be taken seriously until people commit themelves to base the work on the academic work and no that of Maglomatis and moviemakers like "Sebastien de Codong." Iraqi (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You're not funny, you're tragic. The Middle East is more than a couple of villages in Iraq. So when you meet people, the first question you ask them is if believe they are the decendents of the Aramaeans or Assyrians? You make it look like the rest of ous don't have relatives in the Middle East and have never been there either. So what you say you live in Iraq? So what?! You talk so much bullshit and I have no idea of what you meant with "Codong", I guess that was some kind of insult to Sebastien? It wouldn't surpise me anyways, you have an extraordinary imagination after all. The TriZ (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Benne, you provided 2 links to prove that Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People lets talk about the first one [21] having read that I did not see anythink in the webpage saying that what you claim. Having read that I got the impression that only Syriacs were considered Arameans because of its subject matter and table to contents. I have not read the book, as you might have, so if there are any pages you want me to read that prove that ALL Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs are called Aramean People (not Aramaic speakers only) then put the quote with the page number. The second source, [22] ... ok, I looked at the chart in the beggining and I already knew that this is not reliable. There is no academic in the world who would accept that chart as being true, i looked over that and kept reading ... then I read the first line which says "the Arameans of Persia decided to take more independent position against Antioch and started to separate from the mother church; the Syrian Orthodox Church. " once again this is incorrect since at this time the Syriac Orthodox Church did not even exist!! I stopped reading it at this point because already the first 30 seconds of opening the page I saw countless untrue facts (chart and the first line). This page is not reliable at all, and Benne, I will ask you this once and once only, do you seriously use that page as a reliable source to claim that all Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriacs are Arameans? Malik Danno (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is important to point out that this is the article about the people known as "Aramaeans" in Swedish and German, especially since we get a lot of trolling and revert-warring from diaspora members in Sweden and Germany. I would go as far as claiming that if it weren't for the Swedish and German "Aramaeans", this problem would be invisible to us here. But it appears that they were never called "Aramaeans" in English, and this is English language Wikipedia, so it would be undue to list "Aramaeans" as a variant right in the lead. Please get over yourselves and accept that the only relevant question here is de facto usage in English. Understand that even if the self-designation was Aramaye, this wouldn't be any reason to give "Aramaeans" as an English name any more than the Germans calling themselves Deutsche is reason to give "Dutch" as an English name for the Germans at the Germans page. This is about English designations, not endonymy. --dab (𒁳) 08:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not what this is about. This is as what you say about the use in English, and Aramaeans is indeed a variant. I'll give you a couple of examples, [23] in this book the author uses Aramaean-Syriacs under Syria as you can see. [24] here again the author uses Aramaeans as a variant name for the people. And if course, this is just a small sample... The TriZ (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The TriZ, no one is denying that Syriacs are called Arameans ... I will be the first to admit that ... that is not the issue here. The issue here is whether or not Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People are also called Arameans ... and they are not. The title is Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People (also known as ...) in that case Arameans don't fit. If it was Syriac People (also known as...) i would still think it was incorrect, but I would have to accept. Do you get what I mean. My approach and Dab's approach are different but both see that Aramaean is questionable to be placed there.
I think that if Aramean is placed there so should Chaldean, Arabs, Kurds, and Jews Malik Danno (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Malik, how can a person who says he is familiar and informed with this whole thing equate Aramaeans with Kurds and Jews. Either your trying to be funny or you must be ignorant. Check the second source I provided instead. I think that proves the point. The TriZ (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia policy to use the most common designated term(s) used in the English language. You can't argue with that. Secondly, using some author of a book as a "reliable" reference is not academic. We should really only be citing original research and other primary literature, such as old manuscripts, or academic journal articles. Now, can we move onto more important issues? This article is still in really bad shape, not to mention many other Assyrian-related articles. --ܫܲܪܘܼܟܝܼܢܘܼ (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
No I am not trying to be funny and I would appreciate it if you don't call me ignorant. Ok, let's look at the second source. You have sourced "The Great German Nation" By Craig M. White, and from there you take one sentence to prove your point. Lets look into the book itself, it talks about how the Modern Germans are descendants of the Ancient Assyrians, White goes on to prove that Ancient Assyrians migrated to modern Germany and became Germans themselves. This theory is popular with many Evangelical thinkers, trying to link up revelations and the old testament to modern world. Ok so you use this book with this message as your source. Mind you where he states "Assyrians today are variously known as Chaldeans, Aramaeans, Syrians, Syriacs and Maronites." (White 76) he does not source the material, so this is his own word. And since you take this part of the book ... this one sentence ... do you also agree with Craig M. White's stance on the Ancestry of Germans being Ancient Assyrians? Also its important to state that these evangelical scholars are not taken seriously by many academics for the sole reason of their over the top theories.
Second point I want to make is when I said if Aramean is placed there then so should Chaldean, Jews, Kurd and Arab. When I am saying that I am not equating 'modern Arameans' with Kurds, Jews and Arabs, rather I am stating that those are all identities of the Assyrian People so why choose 1 identity over the other. The other identities of Arabs, Jews and Kurds are even more prevalent because there have been 'scholars' who have written entire books/reports on such identities (not just 1 unsourced line like Criag M. White) I will rewrite the same message I wrote above i a previous discussion for you so you get the picture of what I meant.
"should we also include "Kurds" in there because on Dr. Mehrdad R. Izady's claim that Modern Assyrians are really kurds? Should we include "Arabs" due to the fact that Saddam Hussien, Tariq Aziz and many Bath Scholars saying that Assyrians are Arabs (brought on by arabization process)? Should we also include "Jews" because Asahel Grant published a report that states that Assyrians were in fact the 10 lost tribes of Israel? and Don't get me started with self claiming 'experts' in the Chaldean camp who post articles about how Chaldeans are from Ancient Chaldea (lol). By the way these "theories" or "claims" are still being used today and some still believe they are true. If Arameans will be used on your basis, then why not Kurds, Arabs, Chaldeans and Jews?" Malik Danno (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, if your not joking or being ignorant, then what? Are you stupid? I don't care about his opinions in the matter, that is totally irrelevant! I also don't care the least about what whoever guy has said what! That is completly irrelevant! You understand? Irrelevant! Isn't English your first language? Why are they not relevant you might ask? Cause this is about what name this people is also known as. The people is not known as Arabs neither Kurds or Jews. Some people might claim that the ancestry of the people is Arab or whatever, but that doesn't mean the people is known as such. What is said is that the people is sometimes known as Aramaeans/Arameans, sources has shown that. The known schoolar Sebastien de Courtois book is named The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, The Last Arameans. The TriZ (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please people, this is getting ridiculous. I remember being in exactly the same type of discussion about Assyrians like 2 years ago. Unfortunately the pointless and ugly, time-wasting arguements surrounding self-determination are popping their ugly heads all over sections relating to the Middle-East now. There is a very nice section on Ethnicity here. For our lands and people which have been a ridiculously complex melting pot since history began, it is most sensible to use the definition of complete self-determination with ethnicity. Basically, the people are whatever ethnicity they choose to call themselves, whether it be 'Assyrian', 'Chaldean', 'Syriac', 'Aramaens' or "Freaking Zombie Demons from Outer Space" as I believe my own ethnicity to be. They are that ethnicity, and we have to accept it. However, if you are wanting to talk about Genetic or more specifically 'Genography' - that is a completely different story. I have recently read a very interesting paper on MedLine that states that way more than half the people of any determined ethnicity have roots completely outside it from different places. So before everyone starts getting hot under the collar about which ancient empire they are directly decended from, please remmeber that and the wikipedia rules. So please no personal insults. PS please if you reply can you post anything on my user discussions page to give me a heads-up, as I am not getting any email notifications, so I wont know when to reply. Also anyone please know how to get email notifications on pages you are watching? Thanks. TC Pink Princess (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New Possible Directions

I'm not even going to attempt to re-enter the debate about the naming issue. That right there illustrates why this page should be "split", or more specifically reverted to its pre-Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac state. However, I won't venture into that for now, as it's hopeless.

In stead, I have recently come to realize that we are focusing way too much effort on issues that won't get us anywhere, such as this name issue, and what our ancestors used to identify with 1500 years ago. It is now irrelevant, because times have changed quite considerably. We have those who identify as Assyrians, others as Chaldeans, Syriacs, Aramaeans, Arabs, Kurds..... (let me catch my breath...) ... etc. I have already stated Wikipedia is not a place to reflect our ideals and desires (such as unity), but rather to report to the world what is truth. I know that's a tough concept to follow, but it must be followed nonetheless. But before I go off on a tangent, and do what I vowed not to do at the beginning of this post, I must stop myself and talk about new possible directions that we could/should take in this shame that's being referred to as a "project". To conclude my rant, let me just say that any efforts made to convince certain partisans (they know who they are) are futile.

Now, back to business. Upon retrospect of the last year or so, I've realized that I (like others) have wasted too much of my effort researching what has already been researched for nearly 200 years now: the ancient history of the Assyrians. Perhaps we can reroute some of our energy to improving the information about the history of our people in the last 200 years or so. Namely, the 19th century prior to the Assyrian genocide. There are a wealth of books from the 19th century that can be downloaded (in full PDF format) from Google Books and www.archive.org. A significant era of our history took place in the Hakkari mountains and around Lake Urmia up until the dawn of the 20th century, which I feel is often neglected, save for the occasional mention of one's tribe (e.g. Nochiyaya, Urmijnaya, Tiyaraya). In these priceless 19th century books, we are given first-hand accounts of individuals who travelled to these villages in these areas inhabited by our ancestors, which provide critical information about aspects of everyday Assyrian life such as social structure, religious practice, cuisine, clothing, dance, music, and so much more.

I acknowledge that this appears to pertain mainly to the Church of the East, however other similar books can be found that deal with the adherents of the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Chaldean Catholic Church. This valuable information is staring us in our faces while we squabble over issues that won't lead us to any progress.

I welcome everybody's thoughts, comments, and criticisms, with respect to what I am proposing. ܫܲܪܘܼܟܝܼܢܘܼ (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What you say makes perfect sense and I agree with 100%, but what pisses me of in this world is hypocrites (not you)! You have some people who for a year strive for a name Assyrian/Syriac to replace Assyrian, and after gaining acceptence change all 'Assyrian' words to 'Assyrian/Syriac' yet when I want to change 'Syriac' to 'Assyrian/Syriac' I am a bad guy. And also when the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac (Also known as ...) is good and everyone agrees with it, you have some people who put their POV on there and then are unwilling to discuss because they know they have no points for it. Khon, I am behind you 100% that the name issue in our Assyrian community is the stupidest thing, especially at this time, but you have to realize we have bent over backwards to appease some fanatical members on Wikipedia, and they still want more and more and more! Malik Danno (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I support your move to use "Assyrian/Syriac" by default. But you still need to look at the individual case. Especially:

  • is the topic denominational? In such cases terms for denominational subgroups may be preferable
  • is the topic historical? "Assyrian/Syriac" is ok for the contemporary group. It is a horrible anachronism when applied to the Middle Ages: we don't want this dispute, which has been acute for a generation at most, to spill over into historical articles. "Syrian" or "Christian Syrian" is usually good enough for pre-1948 contexts.

Apart from that, sure, let's use "Assyrian/Syriac". --dab (𒁳) 21:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Festival Section

I think that Akitu HAS TO BE included in the Festival section as it is the greatest non-Christian festival for the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People. No one give me that bullshit that is it only a festival for Nestorian-Assyrian people cause that is 100% bullshit. It is for ALL ASSYRIANS!!

yes? It is still mentioned? Right at the top of the "Culture" section? Also, you may want to avoid the Akitu redirect and use Assyrian new year directly, especially if the "Akitu" name is controversial. Akitu is a reconstructed, Iron Age Akkadian term. It cannot be traditional and is obviously a product of Assyrianism. I really wish people would stop trying to clutter this page with Akkadian nonsense. This is the page about the Syrian Christians, not about Iron Age Assyria. --dab (𒁳) 10:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So the Akitu article was another bad case of "we are the Ancient Assyrians" Iron Age re-enactment. I've tried to fix it. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

the relevant article is now found at Kha b-Nisan. --dab (𒁳) 12:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Kha'b Nissan is the largest of ALL the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Festivals ... if it is removed from the Festival section then what is the point of having a festival section. And Dab lets not bullshit by saying "This is the page about the Syrian Christians, not about Iron Age Assyria." cause its not about Syriac Christians its about the Assyrian People! Once again the largest festival for the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people is Kha'b Nissan! It is celebrated by members of all the Assyrian Christian denominations Chaldean, Syriac and 'Nestorian' Malik Danno (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

please add it back to the festivals section, properly. What has been removed from the festivals section was confused rambling about Babylonian Akitu.[25] If you have material discussing Kha b-Nisan itself, by all means add it, and also add it to the Kha b-Nisan article. Just remember to

  • avoid aina.org and other news websites as references, unless it is to cover recent events, and attribution "according to the Assyrian International News Agency" is made. If material is removed because it is based on dubious sources, it doesn't mean the material itself is invalid, it just means better sources must be cited. In other words, who is Fred Aprim, why does he get to host his private notes on aina.org, and why should Wikipedia link to his pdfs as "references"?
  • avoid claims of "pre-Christian" unless cleanly referenced to good sources. Obviously spring has always been celebrated since the stone age. We don't summarily describe all spring festivals as "pre-Christian" or "paleolithic" because of that.

--dab (𒁳) 11:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

article status

it is almost unbelievable, but the article is reasonable stable now in a more or less coherent and readable revision. wow. The move to the awkward "slashed" title really worked wonders. The only thing that still strikes me as comical is the collage of portraits. Let's see, we have an Iron Age bust, a snapshot of a sacral kitsch illustration of Saint Ephrem, a stern WWI general, and a, dare I say it, rather homoerotic snapshot of a young man with no shirt on. Wth? I suggest we replace this with something a little less exposed to unintentional hilarity. --dab (𒁳) 07:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. What is common to use? I've some suggestions, Josef Fares and Ignatius Zakka I Iwas. The TriZ (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I see the slashed title merely as a transition phase, until a workable and scientifically sound solution is found. The article is still dominated by an Assyrianist point-of-view.
Concerning the picture: we need to get rid of Ashurbanipal here, whose picture is a blatant anachronism here. I would strongly suggest keeping Mor Ephrem, adding a football player, perhaps a parliamentary from Sweden, such as Yilmaz Kerimo or Ibrahim Baylan. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It's true that there is still a lot of work that has to be done with the article, I guess a reason for why the article is relativitely stable for now is that no one has taken the time to really go through the article, though this is a necceserarity that has to be done
I also agree that the portrait of Mor Ehprem should stay, he is the individual who has made the greatest impact for the Syriac litterature and the Syriac Church. Unfortunately I see no pictures of any of the football players, otherwise that would be great. The TriZ (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep the pictures. That they appear funny to you Dab should be of no concern. And might I also add in the importance of Mar Ephrem in Church of the East as well, since we, like him, use the rite and liturgy not of the Greeks but of the Eastern Church. Gabr-el 01:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
And if you find a man with no shirt on a little too homoerotic for you, then my advise to you is to censor yourself from the abundant and disgusting pornography that wiki-commons is!Gabr-el 04:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It has not been more stable, in fact its been worse. Take a look at other pages. The revert wars have now moved from this page to 10s of other pages on Wikipedia. The name has caused mass confusion, no guidelines with what and when to use this artifical name. You either merge everything under what Benne said a scientific or acedemically correct name (which of course would be Assyrian) or split the pages again. Chaldean Christians already exists, so just re-create the Syriac people page once again but this time not a fork page of this one. Original material, that I think Triz would be able to provide. This compound name is only used by political parties that tries to unite the 3 denoms during election time. Certainly its not hte name of a nation or an ethnic group. Iraqi (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people → Assyrian people — The page was moved without discussion or agreement. Even thou we have previously agreed to move it back, admins have ignored all discussions regarding the issue. This is not the name of an ethnic group. It goes against Wikipedia's rule of one name per article. Wikipedia should not be a place to start some kind of a revolution by unifying certain groups. Chaldean Christians and Syriac people already exist. And if we were to put all those pages together, then a google test shows that the most common term used to desribe the entire group is Assyrian people. — Iraqi (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Partisan users votes doesn't really count, for obvious reasons. And the most common name is evidently not "Assyrian people", it's "Syriacs". The TriZ (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
"Partisan users votes doesn't really count, for obvious reasons." It's not obvious to me. What is a partisan user and why wouldn't his or her "vote" count? — AjaxSmack 01:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
There are no "votes" deciding these matters, and anyone's opinion "counts", insofar as it is cogent, relevant, and sensible. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Syriacs is NOT the most common name, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom. We are syriacs, but the way Assyrians and Chaldeans use this term is different; we use it as a larger group, where else most people who exclusively call themselves syriacs deny the existence of assyrians and chaldeans. Gabr-el 05:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - even though I HATE seeing two or even three separate pages on the exact same people, I have to say that the way things are going is not acceptable. I would be 100% opposed if this page was not changed so much so that it has become non-Assyrian. As of now there is little to no mention of Ancient assyrians, we arent allowed to put Kha b'nissan on the festival section (because it is politically incorrect) and in the also see section we cannot put out Ancient empires ... Persian and Greek People have their empires mentioned ... but for some reason it is politically incorrect for us to mention our ancient history ... man I hate appeasement. Malik Danno (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. I would rather we call the article "Suraye" but I am so isolated in this position that I have no choice but to do request that we undo the first move, which was artificial and without unanimous support, but was sneakily passed with only three voting. That is not a vote. This is, all who wish to oppose, let them oppose. Gabr-el 05:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional support -- I support restoring the Assyrian people article, as long as it deals only with Assyrian Church of the East members and with those Syriacs who, by taking part in Assyrian organizations and activities, voluntarily choose to consider themselves Assyrians. In no way it should encompass all of the Sur(y)âye, for whom a separate article should be created. Hence, I would prefer renaming the current article, and creating a separate article for the Assyrian ethnic group. After all, ethnicity is nothing more than a group of people who share a common sense of ancestry, be it based on historical facts or not. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Then that is no longer an Ethnicity page, but rather an identity page.Malik Danno (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- There seems to be some confusion here; the purpose of this poll is not to separate the articles as mentioned by two users above but rather to change the existing name of this article. This poll deals exclusively with the current name of the present article and nothing more. The name of this article if voted on will change and that will be the end of it; this poll does not represent anything more than a requested name change. Ninevite (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
But I have a feeling it would lead to creation of two articles ... that's what I don't want. Would we have to gain consensus for a new page to be created? Malik Danno (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
CommentPrecisely, this is a consensus specifically adhering to the modification of this articles name, nothing more and nothing less. If consensus is reached on this matter regarding the requested move, as dictated by the votes of the users, then that will be the end of it. Any construction of separate pages will result in violation of this move, and the creation of forks. User: Ajax above has summed it up well "The current title is an abomination. Choose one name and stick with it." Ninevite (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This claim: "Any construction of separate pages will result in violation of this move, and the creation of forks," strikes me as overly process-centered. We are free to discuss any change at any time, and to make any decision at any time. A page being moved by consensus is not generally understood as a prohibition against splitting the article later. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - This article should be used as a disamb article, because many articles links to this article. An "Asssyrian people" article should be created and an "Syriac people" article as well. The "Assyrian people" article should only deal with those who are members of the Assyrian church of the east and the Chaldean church and those who consider themselves Assyrians. JeanVinelorde (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Might want to take your support back because as stated above, what you propose will not happen unless there is a consensus about starting a Syriac people page. Also what you propose makes no sense because then the page would not be dealing with an ethnic group rather an identity. Malik Danno (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I have lost all faith in Wikipedia and the admins involved in this page (they know who they are), but I'll provide my vote regardless :) In regards to what The TriZ said above... everybody's votes count, whoever you are, whatever your reason is for participating in Wikipedia. And keep in mind that he who accuses another should first consider his own biases. --Šarukinu (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

the move to the present extremely neutral title has solved a lot of problems. The only reason to move it back would be because you miss the endless ethnic feuds and want to start them over. No thank you. --dab (𒁳) 06:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I sure didn't need to read that. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussions do not consist of accusing the person of wanting ethnic feud. Gabr-el 06:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It has not solved any problems. You have revert wars going on in 10 different pages now because of the confusion. You have users moving pages, and having other users moving it back. And I can't see how Assyrian people can be considered non-neutral. But lets just say some how it was considered to be non-neutral; Wikipedia says use the most common term used in the English language, EVEN if the title appears to be non-neutral. Thus, you can't move pages like Armenian genocide to another name for "title not being neutral enough." Iraqi (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
from Wikipedia:Naming conflict
Article names - Wikipedia's technical and practical requirements mean that one particular name must be used as the definitive name of an article. If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree. Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons.
  • Well the revert wars is because of you, and your friend Am6212 (talk · contribs) and all of his socks. I have a suggestion anyway, how about shrinking this page a little and keep the name, but we also recreate the old Syriac people page and a new Assyrian people page? As some kind of subpages to this article. The TriZ (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
And btw, speaking of the Armenian genocide, if we are to follow wikipedia conventions of most common name (and I don't agree Assyrian is the most common name as we also have proven many times before) we should change the name of the current article Assyrian genocide to Seyfo. The TriZ (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Why are you asking for consensus ... are you people not familiar with how shit in Wikipedia works, basically do whatever you want, start your own pages and go nuts, that is how shit is run here, I mean just look at how they started the Syriac People page ... did they go through this bullshit? Malik Danno (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    That's closer to the truth than I think a lot of Wikipedians would like to admit. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • We see this has happened. The Assyrian people page was appeased to the title "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People", then the content of the Assyrian page was appeased to include content belonging to a tiny minority of the Assyrian population, later we see that other pages are also appeased from Assyrians in Iraq to Assyrians and Syriacs in Iraq, and this constant appeasement has been sought after by certain admins for the sake of only a couple of members. Where has this appeasement led us? Well, as we see it right now, the content of all the Assyrian pages has been changed to meet the standards of 2 members, and the titles have also been changed, and we see that these appeasement tactics were fruitless because we see that the Syriac People page has reemerged. That page is clearly one sided and biased, it talks more about the Syriac Church then the people itself (eg. population) and the identity section is clearly one sided as it does not include the Assyrian Identity followed by many Syriacs from around the world. In conclusion we see that appeasement has made the situation here on wikipedia worse and not better. Malik Danno (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    I think you're using the word "appease" in a way unfamiliar to most English speakers. I find the above paragraph slightly confusing. I do agree that trying to please everyone by using a multi-title will generally make everyone unhappy instead. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment. And let's say that the move here is implemented, what happens with articles like History of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. Is there a consensus to rename them accordingly as well?--Yannismarou (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Or here: Assyrian/Syriac culture ("Chaldean" missing?!). There is a mess everywhere with one, two or three names used each time.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, all of these other pages that were moved with no discussion, but were given the reason of the de facto name of the people is the same as the name of this page by User:dab (Who took full control of all of these articles.) Since this page won't exist under the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac name anymore, all other pages that were moved need to be moved back to their original names. Iraqi (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you say, but it would have been better if they were also co-nominated, so that a broader overall consensus ir reached, and so that the extent and the importance of the proposal (as well as its impacts) are adequately exposed. This would have probably attracted further feedback as well. Not that this particular proposal suffers from a lack of users expressing their views! It has already attracted quite an interest.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a this issue seems to span many articles, or at least more than one. Because of that, it would seem advisable to discuss the more general question, in a general context. What would be the best way to do that, do you think? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well since this is the main page, then all related pages (such as Assyrian diaspora) need to follow suit. If this page is moved back to its original name, then all pages that were moved without discussion by user dab need to be moved back to their original (Assyrian only with no silly slashes) names. Iraqi (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Also See Section II

Lets discuss the bloated and mainly useless section here. Lets see propositions and from there we will discuss which ones should be omitted. This the list as of now:

Malik Danno (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

you want to discuss which items to include, not which ones to exclude. The "See also" section isn't a list of Syriac/Assyrian topics. Four or five links to important topics are more than enough. We have the category system for browsing related articles. --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that's why we should propose alternatives and talk about it before changing things ... this is my proposition:

Affected articles by the article's new title

Please discuss on the most appropriate title for History of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people after this article's renaming here.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

the article rename is a major disaster for anyone wishing to make actual progress here.

It is, of course, great for people who are just here for the antagonism, because it means we can start over where we were two years ago.

We have been through this in great detail. This is the article on the "Assyrian/Syriac" people no matter where you move it. The present move just means that we happened a "consensus" of Assyrianist editors. The article will just be moved again as soon as we get a "consensus" of Aramaeanist editors.

I have no doubt that the article will be moved once again to a neutral title, but have fun spouting hate at one another for another few months until we get there.

I will restrict my involvement here to preventing WP:CFORKs. This is still the article on the Syriac people. It is not suddenly an article on an "identity". We already have Assyrianism and Aramaeanism for that. The move just means that Wikipedia has a "consensus" for taking the Assyrianist pov atm. --dab (𒁳) 09:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Dab, check the discussion above, and you'll see that all non-involved users who participated in it supported the move.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The move is arguable if you get the "Syriac" faction to agree to it. As it stands, your "consensus" is non-existent. I ask you to "check the discussion above", including Benne's "conditional support" I support restoring the Assyrian people article, as long as it deals only with Assyrian Church of the East members. This isn't what the move proposal was about. The move means that we now treat the "Syriac/Assyrian" people under the title of "Assyrian people". If you can get a true consensus for that, fair enough. As it stands, you have nothing like a consensus, you just pretend you do.

  • JeanVinelorde's "support" in fact advocates a split, not a move. JeanVinelorde will realize that this isn't actionable as soon as he reads up on the problems involved at Names of Syriac Christians.
  • Benne's conditional support is in fact a "delete" vote, since if we merge this article into Assyrian Church of the East, we will have no article on the ethnic group. Benne of course proposes to then re-create that article under Syriac people, which will effectively amount to a move to Syriac people
  • Malik's "support" to have two or even three separate pages on the exact same people is in blatant violation of WP:CFORK: having two articles on the same topic is not something you can decide to do by consensus, since it violates Wikipedia policy
  • Biruitoru's support is genuine. He just doesn't like the slashes, never mind the silly dispute. That's fine. But where do we move it, to Syriac people or to Assyrian people? Biruitoru's rationale is equally good for either move. Biruitoru hasn't done the painstaking review of English usage I have presented further up in the archives. I must ask why this strawpoll was conducted without reviewing this evidence.

From the above check of the discussion above I conclude that there isn't, in fact, any consenus. You have just collected a couple of votes, under false pretense, and over the course of six days, in a dispute going on for several years. Your move proposal doesn't show any awareness of the issues involved, especially WP:NAME, WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK, which have come up again and again, over and over in this. You try to solve a problem by ignoring its shape and quoting a "vast majority of Wikipedians". Your "abomination" happens to be the name picked by the official US census. Have you considered that there may have been real reasons behind the choice? As in, similar reasons of neutrality as we are forced to observe on Wikipedia? Since you do not appear to actually be part of the Assyrianist faction, I will just assume you were ill-advised, and I would ask you in good faith to undo your move. --dab (𒁳) 09:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

About consensus: well, as I see the discussion above only one user accepted the title as it was, and, for various reasons, almost everybody supported the move proposal. So, indeed, there is a consensus against the current title, and "Assyrian people" is definitely regarded as the best alternative. Everybody reading the discussion comes to this conclusion. As you said consensus changes, and as I said the discussion was only about the move and nothing else. If stalemate is indeed the outcome of this, and my closing proves to be wrong (I don't say I am infallible), a new discussion could give a different outcome. And the main question remains: how can you keep a title when 9 to 10 reject it (including non-involved editors)?
Regarding your proposal above, I will not undo my move, but you can bring the issue to WP:AN: if a sysop consensus is formed there against my decision, and if it is proved that I was wrong, then I'll recognize my mistake, and another adm can easily undo my move. Best--Yannismarou (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yannismarou, I appreciate you want to help here, but please show some evidence that you are aware of the problem. There is no consensus. There is an Assyrianist tag team, and an Aramaeanist tag team. Yes, the Assyrianists are more numerous, so with the help of a few uninformed votes they may get a "consensus". What the hell does it mean to have a consensus "against" a title when there is no consensus on where to move it instead? Nobody likes the slashes, ok? It's just that this is the only option left when you try to remain strictly neutral in the face of the gigantic immaturity of this "dispute". Everybody reading the discussion comes to this conclusion is nonsense. I must be the one uninvolved editor who has looked into this in greatest detail, and I certainly do not come to any such conclusion. Have you even reviewed all redirects pointing to this page? There must be about 60. How can you begin to make claims about "best alternatives" if you haven't even considered all alternatives? I ask you to do this again, properly. The neutral title has, in fact, been the outcome of a proper presentation of the case. Your "discussion" has an uninformed outcome because you failed to point people to the issues involved. My question is, have you reviewed the strawpoll of last November before making your "proposal"? Are you even aware of the strawpoll of last November? Do you need me to post a link to it, or do you think you will be able to navigate to it? If you are aware of the November 2008 strawpoll, which presented the options correctly, how do you justify your simplistic "suggestion" above?

Once the options are presented correctly, I will ask you to discount any pov-pusher votes, i.e. any votes by editors who slap their userpages with "proud to be Assyrian" or "proud to be Aramaean" and other ethnic nationalist paraphernalia, unless' their vote presents a rationale that establishes they are willing to seek common ground with the other faction. Just putting the Assyrianist editors who happen to be online at present against the Aramaeanist editors who happen to be here isn't a "vote" in the wiki spirit. Like in a deletion discussions, votes are to be discounted if they aren't arguably based on a rationale respecting our project goals.

After you have done that, i.e. (a) present the options properly, and (b) discount all party-line votes from either tag-team, and you still get a consensus to move, I will congratulate you and gladly support the move. I am sorry to say you are nowhere even near such a glorious result. --dab (𒁳) 09:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, dab, I already reviewed both the previous polls. Thank you for your proposal to post me the link, but I have already followed it. The new move proposal was made under the new circumstances created after the result of this article's move proposal. If it is ill-initiated it will be rejected, and if my decision here was wrong it will be reverted by a sysop consensus after you raised the issue in the appropriate forum.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that Yannismarou (talk · contribs) is himself a partisan in this. This means that I have just wasted my time trying to point out what he has done, since I take it he is in fact fully aware of the situation.

For the record, I do believe a title "Assyrian people" is acceptable in the light of English usage, provided that we are clear that this is one name of the "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" and not a group that can be treated as somehow separate from a distinct "Syriac people". These are two names for the same group, not two groups. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seriously no idea how you thought Yannis has a partisan view here – as far as I know him, he has no relation to these groups whatsoever. Anyway, if the problem is just the content forks, can't we handle that simply through protecting the redirects, and blocking people who keep railing against it? Not that I'd underestimate the tenacity of some troublemakers, but if you yourself say the title is objectively justifiable, I don't see why we couldn't maintain it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
As I understood, the article only to be moved to and thus, the "Aramaic people" count under the title "Assyrian people". This will only start more discussions. "Syriac people" is a very neutral article against "Aramean people" or "Assyrian people". Many Assyrians accept "Syriac" as self-designation and in many cases also denote themselves as "Syriacs". The term "Syriac people" includes all who call themselves Arameans, Assyrians or Syriacs, while the "Assyrian people" only includes those who call themselves "Assyrians". In so doing so, an article like "Syriac people" must be re-created to avoid discussions and conflicts. Otherwise both sides will never be satisfied.JeanVinelorde (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
"Aramaen people" is not an option. The valid options, as established like a year ago in painstaking detail are "Assyrian people", "Syriac people", "Assyrian/Syriac people" or "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people", the most awkward also being the most neutral. These four titles are the possibilities we are looking at within WP:NAME. I thus appreciate that Yannis' move is in fact arguable, I am just disputing he has anything resembling a proper "consensus" based on his shoddy "proposal" above. --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., I am happy to take your word for Yannis' sincerity. The problem with the "troublemakers" is that they can hardly do as much damage as the well-meaning but ill-advised trying to "fix" this. The shape of it is that Aramaeanists and Assyrianists can "agree" on moving this article to "Assyrian people", the Aramaeanists with the tacit understanding that they then wander off to create their own "Syriac people" or "Aramaean people" counter-articles. Once we tell them that we cannot have that due to WP:CFORK they come back here and rail against the injustice of being subsumed under "Assyrians". Rinse and repeat every four months or so. If there is going to be a proposal to move this article to "Assyrian people" make the proposal state in no uncertain terms that Syriac people will be a redirect to Assyrian people. See if you can get a consensus for that. If you can, I won't object. But what is the point of tricking one faction into the move when it is absolutely clear that this will just lead to renewed edit wars?? --dab (𒁳) 14:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem Dab, we just do a new poll and I get 50 new Syriac wikipedians to vote for a move to Syriacs. A consensus is a consensus, right Yannismarou? The TriZ (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


indeed. Yannismarou, I apologize for calling you partisan. I think I made a mistake. However, this just means that you made a huge mess of this out of simple ignorance. Seeing your cheek in giving me the old if my decision here was wrong it will be reverted by a sysop consensus after you raised the issue in the appropriate forum I cannot say this is much better. Well, we have a little conference of sysops right here, Fut.Perf. and myself, and I am happy to come to an informed "sysop consensus" with him.

Fut.Perf., you say that Anyway, if the problem is just the content forks, can't we handle that simply through protecting the redirects. This is indeed an option. But if we honour Yannismarou's all-Assyrianist "consensus" for a move to their preferred title, what will we do if the Aramaeanists come up with a "counter-consensus" at Talk:Syriac people?

I will be happy to do this as follows: we get the admins to enforce that there will be only one place to discuss this, and that there will be only one article on this ethnic group (sub-articles on denominational sub-groups like Chaldean Christians are of course no problem). What part of "also known as Syriacs", given right here in the lead, is so difficult to understand?

Our starting point is the extremely neutral name given by the US census authorities, "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people". Now this title gives rise to objections because it is "ugly". If there is a consensus among everyone involved that it is ok to move the article to either Syriac people or Assyrian people, fine. Such a consensus must be made with the clear understanding that there won't be two articles, just the one, at the title of our choice.

The reason why this is a pure waste of time is that it is clear from the beginning that there will never be such a consensus. These factions have been hating each others guts for 30 years, and they will not miraculously agree on a name just for Wikipedia. Anyone understanding this dispute will understand that Yannismarou's "consensus" could only be realized under false pretense. We have just wasted half a day over nothing. --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I can get 200 Assyrian votrs; its not about just numbers of new users Triz, its about who contributed to the article and whos been following along. You can get the 5 billion syriacs your church claims to have under its membership to sign up for wikipedia; that is irrelevant. Furthermore dab, that there is no appropriate place for a Syriac article (your opinion not mine) is of no concern to the assyrian page. Let yourself and the Aramaen Syriacs debate each other to high hell and you all can decide what the devil you want to do about the syriacs; this is the Assyrian Page and always has been; it is not fair that the Syriacs, complaining against the likes of you, should come and wreck this article. Let the Syriacs start whatever article they want and if wikipedia admins won't let them have one, don't steal another one!!!!Gabr-el 15:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

this isn't the "assyrian page", this is the page on the "Assyrian/Syriac people", also known as "Assyrian people" and "Syriac people", as is made perfectly clear in the lead. The misconception that the scope of this article as somehow changed to Assyrianism-only based on the move is the only too-predictable outcome of your move. This is not what the move implies.

Yannismarou, if you cannot learn from Gabr-el attempt at WP:IDHT why your move was a bad idea, I think you should go back to whatever you were doing earlier. --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And I have just given both Gabr-el and The TriZ a short timeout. You are right, with these people around, a consensus will never be possible. The solution is not to stick with some awkward non-solution, but to make the disruptive elements go away. I will block for longer, and on both sides of course, if this kind of debating style continues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
(dab)"I think you (Yannis) should go back to whatever you were doing earlier." - Do you see this everyone? This right here is the best example of User:Dab wanting full control of the project and no participitation of other users. dab, you need to change your behavior. Enough with intermediations, you have chased enough good users that were involved with the project.Iraqi (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
But whats funny here is you dab continue to claim to be the expert in the issue, yet you continue to show your flaws regarding the issue. I don't know how you have concluded that "Syriac people" to be a more neutral term for the article, but even if it is (it is not of course) you seem to ignore Wikipedia's policy of not going with what is the most neutral title but rather the most common name in the English language.
What User Gabr was trying to say is that the issue is within a SUB-Sect, not the entire ethnic group. The issue is within the members of the Syriac Orthodox Church, not within the entire Assyrians. Some within the Church (it is only one of three main Assyrian Churches, so percentige-wise they make up about 20% of all Assyrians) consider themselves Assyrains and some don't. So what issues the Syriac Orthodox Church and its members have regarding its national identity should not effect the entire ethnic group. Iraqi (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I had enough with the accusations, and with all this mess. I still think there was a consensual outcome, but after my decision was attacked in the way it was by various sides (even being called a "partisan" by an adm without any evidence or at least any indication) I re-open the discussion, and I am out! I expect with interest and curiosity what further input both removal proposals will attract (because I'll keep the other one open as well). Maybe Fut. is better suited to close the discussion when he decides to do so. In any case, I stand firmly by my position that (non-)solutions rejected by the vast majority of editors have no chance to survive. Best.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
And yet another win for user dab for scaring off the rest of the Wiki community. This is how he mantains his complete control of this and related pages. The problem is one user, not the issue. This project will always be a mess as long as dab continues with his tactics of calling names, threatening, indemidation of other users. Iraqi (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
No man, I genuinely think that Dab is looking out for the best interest of this page. (from my understanding) He tries to keep this page related to 1 people ... and the title of that group of people is not as relevant as keeping the people in one page. Up until then I agree with him 100%. Where we drift ways is when the content of the page is replaced from everything Assyrian (all three groups) to things that are accepted by every single side in this debate. He tries his best to make everyone happy but in the end we all give him shit for that.
P.S. Dab don't think that I am targeting you, you are for sure entitled to disagree with my assessment of you above Malik Danno (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1st line of the 1st sentence of the lead

Now that the move is confirmed by another administrator (partisan as well?), I think it is time to deal with the first line of the first sentence of the lead, which now reads:

"The Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people (known as Assyrians, Syrians, Syriacs, Syrian Christians, Syriac Christians, Suroye/Suryoye[12] and other variants, see names of Syriac Christians) "

This is however inconsistent with the title: the article is now "Assyrian people" and not "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people", and this should be reflected in the lead. Thus, I believe that the above sentence should be rewritten as follows:

"The Assyrian people (known as Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syrians, Syriacs, Syrian Christians, Syriac Christians, Suroye/Suryoye[12] and other variants, see names of Syriac Christians)"

After my move (which I then reverted, being however sure that it would be confirmed due to its correctness and adherence to policy and encyclopedic common sense) I edited the lead as above, but I was reverted by dab with the eloquent edit summary "no way". Since this is no argument, I want to hear any convincing arguments for keeping this inconsistency between the lead and the title. If not, I will re-edit the lead as above.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I also fixed the redirect of "Syriac people" per the move, and I kept it, of course, protected per Fut's correct decision. I believe that all the parties here understand that the relevant discussion dealt only with the renaming of the article, and there is no consensual authorization for its splitting, and the creation of separate articles, forks etc. As the parties (involved and uninvolved) decided this article has the title "Assyrian people" (as the most common term) and deals with an ethnic group, which is known not only as Assyrian but as Syriac, Chaldean (and should thus represent these national identities as well) etc. (per the lead) as well. If there are any redirects I missed, and need fixing, please notify me. By the way, please explain me something: why Syriac people redirects here, while Chaldean people redirects to Chaldean Christians? Shouldn't Chaldean people also redirect here? Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
your question makes plain that you haven't understood the first thing about this dispute. I fail to see why you should throw around your weight here before you have even bothered to read this very article. Please read this article now. All of it. Then read Names of Syriac Christians. All of it. Then come back here and try to answer your own question. --dab (𒁳) 09:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


I think that we sho

uld not Assyrian People but maybe should also be Assyrian or Syriac People (also known as...) because we all have to realize that they both mean the exact same thing. When I (an Eastern Assyrian) says "I am Syriac" ... I am not wrong, and when a Western Syriac says "I am Assyrian" he is not wrong ... Just wanted to say that before this convo continues. Malik Danno (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

any change to the lead that will lead to misunderstandings or pointless disputes is a bad idea. WP:NAME says go with current English usage. The US census is the best guide to that, we are unlikely to find a more neutral, more recent, more authoritative source. You can see right above that any precedence given to the name "Assyrian people" calls up the trolls going "this is Assyrian page, kick out the Syriacs". As Malik says right here, this is the page on the people alternatively known as "Assyrian" or "Syriac". Giving precedence to either term is not neutral, and leads to problems. This isn't "my opinion", it is you "Assyrians" and "Syriacs" who have shown time and time again you are unable to get over this childish naming business. Take a long look in the mirror and ask yourselves whom you are doing a favour here.

The move to "Assyrian people" was stupid, and it will lead to edit wars, and after much ado we will again move it to a more neutral title. You all know this. I really don't see why you bother.

I would be interested in Yannismarou's understanding of "encyclopedic sense" dictating a move to "Assyrian people" rather than to "Syriac people" seeing that there are two hostile factions advocating a move to either. What part of "encyclopedic sense" allows him to pick Assyrianism over Aramaeanism? Why did his move proposal only include the Assyrianist option but not the Aramaeanist option? I ask Yannismarou to go to the Gdańsk page and say that encyclopedic sense dictates that the article must either be at "Danzig" or at "Gdańsk/Danzig" and see how the Poles like his definition of "encyclopedic" or "npov". If Yannismarou will not finally present a rationale of why he chooses to side with the Assyrianist faction rather than taking a neutral position, I will have to conclude that for unknown reasons he is simply a member of the Assyrianist faction and consider him in the same class with the other pov-pushers here. What this page nees is more grown-up people with a grasp of WP:NPOV, not more partisan editors trying to create a majority one way or the other. --dab (𒁳) 08:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"(Dab) I fail to see why you should throw around your weight here before you have even bothered to read this very article. "
Dab you continue to shoot yourself in the leg with comments like these. Stop trying to confuse users so that they get discouraged from the article. This is NOT as confusing as you make it out to be. This article is about an ethnic group that is known as the Assyrians in English. What you are trying to do would be the equivelence of moving Greek people to Greek/Elleniko people or Armenian people to Armenian/Haystani people. Stop creating problems and let others participitate in the project. Iraqi (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Dab you seem to have a personal vendetta against Assyrians for some reason. You have dimonized the people by throwing phrases like "Assyrianist" and Assyranism". I dont know but when I read what you write, I feel sometimes as if you seem to see them as some kind of evil Nazis. Enough with these childish games and for the love of God stop trying to deminish other Users with your abusive words. I have gotten used to your continuous accusations, but sooner or later more admins will confront you regarding your ways. Iraqi (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Dab, do you realize that the move was confirmed by another administrator as well? What are you writing, man ?! It is a pity an adm to accuse another editor invoking "unknown reasons". My rationale is clear: the article is renamed per consensus; thus shouldn't this be reflected in the lead as well? According to WP:LEAD:

  1. "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence"
  2. "As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the page title should be as early as possible in the first sentence and should be in boldface".

Can you please explain why we shouldn't, in this particular case, adhere to policy, and have in the first sentence not the article's title but the "///" thing. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

properly formatted opinion poll on article title

Here is what a proper strawpoll on a possible article move would look like:

This is the article about the group identified as "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" in the US census, and as "Assyrian/Syriac" in the Swedish census. The reason for these compromise names is that the members of this group are divided between one faction strongly advocating use of "Syriac people" and another strongly advocating use of "Assyrian people".

The last poll on this question was taken in November 2008, refer to the archive for details.

opinions on the best article title for the purposes of Wikipedia must be aware of WP:NAME, especially WP:UE. editors are invited to voice their support under the respective options, with a brief rationale.

"Assyrian people"

Move article to Assyrian people.

"Syriac people"

Move article to Syriac people

Compromise title

Move article to a compromise title, either Assyrian/Syriac people as in the Swedish census, or to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people (including special mention of the Chaldean Christian denomination) as in the US census.

  • WP:NPOV. --dab (𒁳) 09:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Even though I think Syriacs is a compromise title (die-hard Arameanists would not settle for anything else but Arameans, just like die-hard Assyrianists wouldn't accept anything but Assyrians), perhaps the autonym Sur(y)āye might be acceptable. Or Syrians (people), Syriac Christians, something like that. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Benne, don't get me wrong, those are good compromises, but I don't think they do. We are forgetting that this is page is not just for us, it is for the regular english speaking Joe who wants some info about BLANK people. To my best understanding in the english language Assyrian is used the most for the people, so anything other than that would just be confusing. Also don't get me started with how confusing "Syrian" would be to the normal english speaker! Furthermore, adopting Suraye/Suroyo just doesn't make sense for both reasons above ... it is not english and english speaking people will not comprehend it ... its like the Croatians, although in Croatian it is Hrvati, in English Wikipedia it is Croats because that is what english speaking people identify them as. Malik Danno (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I also regret that I have agitated you Triz, for asking another admin to move the page. Gabr-el 01:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

What does the US Census or the Swedish Census have anything to do with this article? This article isn't about Assyrians in the United States or Assyrians in Sweden. Nowhere in Wikipedia's guidelines does it say follow what the US Census say when deciding a title of an ethnic page.
I don't see any edit wars, the only edit war that goes on is when you don't have it your way and begin to revert everyone else. You have continued to show your lack of even understanding the issue, even thou you single-handedly wrote the Assyrian naming dispute page. Syriac is not a reference to an ethnicity. Syriac is a language, named Suret in Syriac. It has never been a reference to a nationality, but rather Syriac languaged-based Churches that span from Lebanon to India. Syriac however has been introduced by the Syrian Orthodox Church as an identity in 2000 for its followers, after it changed its name. But this should not effect the Assyrian nationlity/ethnicity. Because the issue is only with a SUB-Group, not the entire group. So at most, the Syriac people should be an identity page desribing the Syrian Orthodox Church's attempt at creating an ethnicity/nationality for its followers. Thus, Syriac people is a referenct to only a SUB-Group (and even then, its not the entire sub-group), and not the entire ethnic group.
And now I think you need to start cleaning the mess you have done with all the pages you moved with no discussion dab. Assyrian/Syriac diaspora for example. At the time, you gave the reason of the "de facto" name of the group was with the slashes since that was what the name of this article was. Concensus have already been taken place twice, so now I think you need to fix all these pages. Iraqi (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I asked you to be aware of WP:NAME, didn't I. The entire debate surrounds the question of the most common name in contemporary usage in notable English language sources. The USA is home to more than half the world's English speakers, so I daresay official US usage has some bearing on the question. It's a bit sad that you needed to ask this after all this time, but there's your answer.
your claim that Syriac refers to the language exclusively is answered exhaustively in the ariticle you refer to. This used to be the case, with exceptions, historically, but not in current usage. If you claim that "Assyrian people" is the most common designation in English language sources, you should place your vote under "Assyrian people", but you should ideally also be able to back up your claim with some sort of reference. After hunting for such a reference for over a year, I am not holding my breath.
remember that I am here as a neutral admin, in order to uphold WP:NPOV. I do not have an opinion on what is "correct" here. If I was the more heavy-handed type, I would just have enforced this move a year ago as a matter of course, since NPOV isn't negotiable, and any admin disagreeing with the judgement would be required to take it to WP:AN or be considered wheel-warring. The fact that I have admins dancing on my nose now who haven't bothered to even read up on what procedural fault I am protesting is because I am too lenient as an admin, since I was socialized as an admin back in 2004, when Wikipedia was still a little bit about intelligent debate among people editing in good faith. Sorry. But I can call on tougher admins to impose order if necessary. --dab (𒁳) 13:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You first need to learn how to have a civilized discussion without barking at other people. Enough with the threats. "Call on admins"? If where going to follow what you say most common name in contemporary usage in notable English language sources then you should have realized by now that Assyrian is far the most used term. The US Census is a representation of the communities in the United States, and not the world. The US Census also has "Sub-Saharan African" "Trinidad and Trobaconian" "Acadian/Cajun" and "Pennsylvanian German". I don't see these names affecting other Wikipedia title pages.
You defend your side with the US Census, but every other source goes against your arguement. Why not follow the The UN? [[26]] CIA [[27]]? Or how about what the English media generally all them? Why not follow the Google test that shows a 4 to 1 ratio Assyrian being the more used term? I can go on, but I have given 10s of different samples in previous archives that goes against your notion. We just came off a second confirmation of the name of the group, their is no need for another vote.
"(dab) your claim that Syriac refers to the language" - This isn't a claim, this is academic. I'd recomment Bruno Poizat's "Manuel de Soureth", regarding the Syriac language. Iraqi (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I recommend everyone to take Iraqi's comments with a pinch of salt. The UN even recognizes the Aramean nation ([28]), so your point is? Your claims that Syriac is simply a reference to the language is very simple to reject. Here you go, Reuters [29], US government [30], Reuters again [31], The UN [32]. If course there is more. It has been made a 9-hour documentary about the Syriac people and its Aramaean heritage, see The Hidden Pearl, written by Sebastian Brock for example. The google tests shows NOT a 4 to 1 ratio. This is the easiest to prove. Assyrian people - 11 900 hits [33], Syriacs - 20 400 hits [34], Syriac people - 4 240 hits [35]. Assyrians is not an option, since it mainly refers to the ancient Assyrians. I'll provide more sources and arguments against you later when I have time to do so. The TriZ (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names comes into play here. Allow me to emphasize some lines from the naming conventions:

In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles...If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain...debating controversial names is often unproductive.

Looking through the logs of this page, it seems clear to me that the article has been at the current location for the vast majority of the past 3 and a half years, since it was moved from Assyrian in Sept. 2005. The last line of Wikipedia:Naming conflict is applicable here as well:

...endless discussion and bi-annual straw polls will likely only lead to more arguing and therefore the title should be left as its creator titled it.

Based on the evidence provided by both Iraqi and The TriZ, it appears to me that both terms are commonly used, and it's doubtful that either is used to a significantly higer degree. I think I can safely speak for most people who don't have a personal stake in the Assyrian vs. Syriac vs. Chaldean argument when I say that I couldn't care less what the title is. Write about the ethnic group, and stop this petty bickering over the title. Parsecboy (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So WP:NAME does actually not support a move to the current title. WP:NPOV on the other hand supports a move to Syriac people or Syriacs. Such an article would include almost all neo-aramaic speaking people. Syriac is the name that the whole group can identify as and which no one in the group rejects. Assyrian is rejected by all the Syriacs and some of the Chaldeans, and likewise with Chaldean and Aramaean. Syriac on the other hand is like an umbrella term, European Syriac Union is an example on that, since it's formed by mainly Assyrian organisations in fact. The first sentence of the article on ESU here in Wikipedia says; "European Syriac Union is an alliance between Chaldean-Syriac-Assyrian political of cultural organizations in Europe that was established in May 2004.".
Furthermore, Iraqi mentions that the name of the group as Syriacs has only existed since 2000, that's not true either, the Syriac Universal Alliance introduced the name in 1983 ([36]), and then the Syriac church followed in 2000 ([37]). So, the name Syriacs has interchangeably been used with Syrians (and also Aramaeans). Therefore, any google search would be misleading since with a google search on Syrian people the hits for the Syriac people can't be distinguished from the hits of the one refering at the citizens of Syria. So the conclusion drawn is that most likely the total hits for Syriac people and Syrian people (the ones aiming for the Syriac people] outnumbers the hits for Assyrian people. The TriZ (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Assyrian is rejected by all the Syriacs You saying that takes away from your credibility. Who elected you to represent what 'Syriacs' believe? Malik Danno (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Triz your links that you provide continue to prove what I am saying. Take the US government link for example you gave: [[38]] - "15,000 Syrian Orthodox (Syriac) Christians". Thus, Syriac in English is used as a reference to a language mostly, but if it used to describe a group of people, then its only members of the Syriac Orthodox Church, and not all Assyrians. So, at most, Syriacs is a sub-set of the subject of this article.
The example of the European Syriac Union you gave it again a diaspora issue. This has nothing to do with the overall ethnic group. We acknowledge the issue is in the diaspora, and thus why it would be ok to have pages like Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people in the United States per dab's favorite census. It was a nice example you gave Triz, but why didn't you mention other institutes in Europe that were created by Syrian Orthodox people? Assyrian Council of Europe, Assyriska FF, etc.Iraqi (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Interesting you mention this, the Chaldean Patriarch recently said that all Syriacs, Chaldeans and Assyrians are one people, and that is the Aramaeans ([39] & [40]). Though what's most funny is that you mention Assyriska FF, like you know anything about the club, but you know the derbys against Syrianska FC, do you know what's funny about them? Both fan sides are saying (...or screaming) the same thing when they are cheering their own team, I guess you can figure out what that is... (if not, here is a youtube link ([41])). I would also want to recommend everyone involved in this to read the first 30 pages of John Joseph's book "The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East", which you can find here [42]. It's a great summarize of the background and history of all the names included in the Syriac naming conflict. The TriZ (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The TriZ, I suggest you and your arameanist faction re-read what Mar Delly says before coming to such conclusions, because as of now it is histerical how you guys are reacting to it lol.Malik Danno (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was that he says sooo many things, and he says such contradicting things that it is irrelevant at this point Malik Danno (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

to Yannismarou: funny how your alleged "consensus" evaporates as soon as the options are laid on the table openly, isn't it. As long as there isn't a clear consensus favouring your move to the Assyrianist title rather than the Aramaeanist one for some reason (e.g. based on some authoritative source we haven't seen yet, do convince us), the article belongs moved back to the neutral title. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dab, do not tell that particularly to me! If you think that "consensus" evaporated, follow WP procedures and act accordingly. Concerning the lead, and since you avoided (I believe not intentionally) to answer to my last comment concerning WP:LEAD policies, the current wording, where "Assyrians" are bolded separately is IMO better, though not ideal. In any case, it is an improvement. And a last comment, mostly related with your previous comments and not this particular thread of yours: from now on leave aside the ad hominem comments against me, and focus on the issue itself. Best.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yannismarou, it is you who continues to ignore the issue. I would be ever so glad to have some argument to discuss here, but you haven't presented any. I will ask you again: why did you suggest the Assyrianist variant, but not the Aramaeanist one? What is your rationale for the move suggestion? I am not saying there isn't any, I am saying you haven't presented one, and you keep dodging the question. Please don't give me ad hominem nonsense. You stated an editorial preference. I am asking to present an argument. I am afraid as long as you cannot even pretend to base this on any argument other than WP:ILIKEIT, you must agree it is hardly "ad hominem" to tell you you have no case. "we got more Assyrianist votes last time around" is not acceptable. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. We discount "party-line" votes in strawpolls which aren't based on interpretation of Wikipedia policy. If you want to argue "Assyrian" is more appropriate than "Syriac" within WP:NAME, finally make my day and do it. As it is, you are defending an strawpoll suggested by a member of the Assyrianist tag-team and predominantly answered by the Assyrianist tag-team. All this proves that Assyrianism is common enough to recruit ten people to spend time on Wikipedia. Nobody is going to dispute that, but it remains unclear what this is supposed to have to do with our naming policy. [[--dab <small (𒁳) 12:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Come on dab! Stop this nonsentic enemy-hunting stuff! I don't give a dumn about the poll, and I am not interested in defending anybody! I acted as any other adm would have done. Do you want to remind you that I was not the one who finally closed it, and that I reverted myself, although I had no obligation to do that. And I invoked WP:LEAD in order to argue that there should be a consistency between the first sentence of the lead and the title of the article. Do you want to answer anything on that?! No! Ok, then keep creating unencyclopedic titles and unencyclopedic leads. In any case, although I told you that the current first sentence is better (not ideal), you insist on the straw poll, the straw poll, the straw poll! You may one day come to grasps with what "encyclopedy" means. Until then, you'll pursue your unencyclopedic non-solutions, having the illusion you're doing something great. Well, it is not my intention to dispel your illusions. Enjoy your article. It is all yours to continue experimenting. I sincerely hope that you will make something really encyclopedic out of it; at least at some time.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

you "don't give a damn about the poll"? Then why are you investing effort in overturning a precariously balanced compromise arrived at after more than a year of tedious effort? You bloody well should care about the poll. You may have acted as any other admin would who was not aware of the history of the dispute. I have now drawn your attention to the actual issues involved, and I ask you once again to either take them into consideration, or stop involving yourself here. You may talk down to me about 'encyclopedicity' once you have invested effort comparable to mine in researching the actual background of this dispute, minus all the partisan claims. As it stands, you refuse to even read the results of that research if it is shoved in your face. This is pathetic. If the above is your farewell, thanks for nothing, pal. You have wasted a prodigious amount of other people's time simply because you couldn't be bothered to spend ten minutes to read the article you were "administrating". --dab (𒁳) 06:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

from the above poll, it has become evident that there isn't the shadow of a consensus supporting the move to "Assyrian people". I will consequently move the article back to the compromise title. --dab (𒁳) 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Which one of the compromised titles? The TriZ (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

People are still waiting for a change back, before any serious improvements of the article can be done...The TriZ (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, having a look at them I have noticed that the Wikipedia German Assyrian/Syriac related pages are disgustingly one sided and wrong. They don't even attempt in trying to be neutral in any way ... how can we here make their pages more neutral? Malik Danno (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

sort of the way these pages would look like if I hadn't put up with the ethnic bitching for more than a year now. The only thing that stands between Wikipedia and full-scale Syriac-Assyrian WP:BATTLEGROUND is a few brave admins, even if I say so myself. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you often say it yourself. Unless you start to moderate how you say it, someone is going to collect together all your various "sayings" - they do not paint a pretty picture. Meowy 01:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, but if you don't have anything to say about the actual content of this article or anything related to it, than please spare ous your comments. The TriZ (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposing the creation of Syriac people page

I would like to propose the re-creation of the Syriac people page. The page would deal with only members of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic church that do not consider themselves ethnically Assyrian. I can't see much objection to this. Except that, I would like to remind, that the creation of this page should not legitimize the creation of fork pages such as "Syriac diaspora", "Syriac culture", etc. Iraqi (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So you defeat your own proposal then. Look, "Iraqi", there aren't two groups, one "Syriac" and the other "Assyrian". "Syriac people" does not refer to adherents of the Syriac Orthodox Church, just like "Assyrian people" does not refer to adherents of the Assyrian Church of the East. We have West Syrian Rite and East Syrian Rite for those two denominations. There is one single ethnic group, and hence there will be one single Wikipedia article, at a neutral title. We cannot do two articles about your ethnic group just because you cannot for the lives of you decide what you would like to be called.

If you want to dispute this, show me one census worldwide that lists two ethnic groups, one Syriac and the other Assyrian, separately.

You have been on Wikipedia how long? How about you begin honouring WP:CITE? And no, "cite" does not mean that you can show some sources saying "Syriac" and some saying "Assyrian" and conclude from this that we need two articles. Present one single academic WP:RS saying explicitly that there are "two ethnic groups or sub-ethnic groups, one known as 'Syriac' and the other 'Assyrian'". As long as you cannot do that, why don't you stuff your "suggestions" and your general prancing about and let the grown-ups clean up the mess the teenage patriots have made. --dab (𒁳) 18:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with dab on this one ... I mean the issue is the "people" section of the proposed page. If you have a "Assyrian People" page and then a "Syriac People" page then you are saying that the are on the same level and both are different Peoples. Then how would you explain all the mentions of Syriacs within the Assyrian People page if they are different? A 'people' is not defined by what you 'think' you are ... will i belong to the Germanic People if tomorow i wake up hating Assyrians and wanting to be German? Your definition of the page does not match with the title ... a better title for your definition would be "Syriac Identity" ... but that still causes issues ... so "Aramean Identity" would be more appropriate. Malik Danno (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Dab", you still have not learned how to reply to other users without barking at them, unfortunately. Look "Dab", your problem continues to be not understanding the issue itself.
""Syriac people" does not refer to adherents of the Syriac Orthodox Church" - Wrong. While in the past (prior to 2000), "Syriac people" didn't even exist in terminology sense, it is however starting to be picked up by in academics and in the main stream media as followers of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Do the search yourself. You are confusing the term with "Syriac Christianity", the later being a reference to only Syriac speaking-based churches, NOT an ethnic/nation group of people.
The creation of the page, does not mean the two are two different ethnic groups. Why have Chaldean Christians page, does that make them an ethnic group of there own? No of course not, so I don't understand your objection. Iraqi (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Me and Gabr-el were blocked for filibustering for nothing, now what Iraqi does is really disruptive filibustering, so can someone block this guy so we can please move on? The TriZ (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2009 (U
Iraqi, the problem with that is still the "people" portion of that title ... you can't compare it to "Chaldean Christians" because they say 2 different things. If it was "Chaldean People" then there would've been much complaint against it. As I said (although still somewhat incorrect) the correct title for your description of the page is "Aramean Identity" Malik Danno (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

indeed. "Iraqi" should have been banned long ago. He is simply not helping. Look, the "Syriacs" and the "Assyrians" are the same group, hence we can only keep one article about them. This article should be entitled "Assyrians/Syriacs". Every call to "create a Syriacs article" goes to show that there is not in fact a "consensus" (as was claimed by the revert-warrior team") for the move to the current article title. --dab (𒁳) 17:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't like someone, doesn't mean they should be banned. Again, your slashes have been rejected by the Wiki community on repeated times. I still see no problem with creating an article about Syrian Orthodox people. If you reject to the creation of the article, then you should've rejected the creation of Chaldean Catholics. Specially when considering Chaldean Catholics are way more closer to Assyrians then Syrian Orthodox (historically, religiously, lingustically.) I still haven't heard a good enough reason for not creating it. And again, by creating it, it doesn't mean it is seen as a different group from the larger Assyrian group. It wouldn't mean we would have to create mirror pages like "Syriac Diaspora", "Syriacs in Iraq", etc, because the Assyrian pages of these serves the same, since Assyrian is the most common term used in the English language (again, the reason for the name of this article.) Iraqi (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Aramaic population

Worldwide there are 12-15 million Arameans ( Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Nestorian. And this is only part of the Christian.


Aramean population without Aramaic origin,

the Islamised Arameans (Mhallami)worldwide: c. 3 000 000 Syria: c. 1 500 000-2 200 000 Iraq: c. 800 000-1 200 000 Lebanon: c. 1 300 000-1 800 000 Israel/Palestine: c. 80 000 Turkey: c. 35 000 (in Tur Abdin c. 2000) North and South America: c. 3 000 000 Germany: c. 100 000 Sweden: c. 120 000 Rest of Europe: c. 280 000 Caucasus and Iran: c. 100 000 Australia/New Zealand c. 80 000-150 000

Most Arabs are Arabicized or Islamised Arameans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.31.50 (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, myself knowing a few. I wont be surprised if there are more - especially since people of Arab countries seem to only intermarry with people withing the same geo-political borders, thus Islamised Aramaens only marry Islamised Aramaens etc... Adding the strong Beduin tradition of only marrying beduins they trace to the same town, this origin would be largely preserved, especially in northern Arab countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and to some extent Jordan).
However, these people consider themselves as Arabs - despite some preliminary geneographic studies showing otherwise. The same can be true for many Assyrian/Aramaens who intermarried with Christian Arabs - who themselves often not consifder themselves "Arabs" due to their religion. I am myself very interested in the relationship between self-identifies ethnicities and actual geneographic origins of people in humanities genetic, political and religious melting-pot, the Middle-East.
Anyway, as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia uses ethnicities (in this case at least) based on the self-identifyingdefinition. That is, the ethnicity of any group of people is what they choose to call themselves regardless of genetics. In this case, Islamised Aramaens generally call themselves "Arabs" whereas Christian Aramaens and even some with Arab origins use the "Aramaen" identity, and that is what we must stick with. Hope that explained mate. TC. Pink Princess (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Judaism?

Are ther really any Assyrian adherents of Judaism? Fipplet (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That I personally know/heard of no! BUT, there are (well were) ethnic Jews living in Northern Mesopotamia (where Assyrians live) and who were very close to their Assyrian neighbours, they even spoke the same language (Aramaic). The other example I can think of are Samaritans ... who (as legend goes) are a mix between ethnic Assyrians and ethnic Jews. There are only a couple thousands of Samaritans left. Finally it is important to note that some of the first Christians in N. Mesopotamia were in fact Jews ... as time went my my guess is that they assimilated in the dominant Assyrian (Nestorian/Jacobite) religious cultures. Hope that was helpful :D Malik Danno (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Inclusions

In the interest of completeness, it is probably a good idea to include the Maronites in this article. They do not just follow the Syriac rite but a core majority of them are Syriac by ethnicity. Their history and that of the Syriac orthodox church are very close and should I think be taken into account. Please discuss.

I think that a majority of Lebanese maronites consider themselves of Phoenician ancestry...even though they use Syriac as a liturgical language. --Xevorim (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of the (western) modern Suryoye who consider themselves of ancient Aramean ancestry and not of ancient Assyrian ancestry are also forcibly included in this article. The Syriacs/Syriac people article is deleted and when you type Suryoye or Syriacs you are redirected to the Assyrian people article. Why not force the Assyrian identity on the Maronites and Copts (egyptian ancestry) too? If you are going to commit identity assassination on the various Aramaic/Syriac speaking peoples and force the Assyrian identity on all of them, do it right and don't forget a single one. Perhaps when Assyrians gather enough strength and support in the future you can even force the Assyrian identity on the Hebrews too, since as the bible says they are "the sons of a wandering Aramean/Chaldean" (Abraham). Tihe Noshe Athuroyo! Tihe Beth Athuroyo! Long live Assyrian Nationalism! Seriously, don't you guys realize that by denying the Aramean/Chaldean and other Aramaic/Syriac speaking peoples identity you are destroying these people? It is as if you commit genocide on them.
BTW for the people who will say that deletion of the Syriacs/Syriac people article was justified because Syriac is a language and not an ethnicity, I have some points to make. Yes I agree that Syriac is a language and not an ethnicity but it is still better to create/make up this ethnicity/name to replace the old name Syrian for the Suryoye than force the name Assyrians on everybody. We all know that the name Syrian/Suryani/Suryoyo is not the same as ancient Assyrian which is called athuroyo in Syriac. Before the creation of the modern country Syria, Suryoyo was translated as Suryani in Turkish, Kurdish and Arabic and as Syrian/Syrienne in English and French. When the country Syria was created the Arab inhabitants were the ones called Syrians instead of the Suryoye. This didn't affect the Arabs, Turks, Kurds and Suryoye that much, because in Arabic, Turkish and Kurmanc there was still a distinction in naming Arab Syrians and the Christian Syrians/Suryoye. Arab Syrians were called Suri/Suriyeli and the Suryoye were called Suryani, so all was clear in the Middle East. When the Suryoyo Diaspora grew and came to live more and more in the west, the need for a replacement of the former name Syrian was needed because it was now associated with Syrian Arabs instead of being associated with "Christians from Syria province".
This is where all the fighting between the Suryoye began. Instead of just making up a new name in English and French to replace the millennia old name Syrian, they (Assyrianists and their western supporters) tried to apply the name Assyrian for all Suryoye whether they accepted descent from the ancient Assyrians or not. Since the collapse of the Assyrian Empire the Suryoye have been called Syrians/Suryani/Suryoye for millennia by the Romans, Byzantines, Arabs and Turks. For an example see Ephrem the Syrian. This whole discussion whether they were descended from Assyrians or Arameans didn't exist, all that mattered was that they were Christians. Assyrians and Arameans were genetically very close and both spoke Aramaic and all eventually converted to Christianity. Assyrians and Arameans merged into one people called "Syrians/Suryani" during the millennia following the collapse of the Assyrian empire. Syrian/Suryani just meant "Christian from Syria province". The Assyrian/Aramean ancestry discussion started when western missionaries came in the 19th century and told the Suryoye that they were descended from the ancient Assyrians. This appealed to nationalist Suryoye because it gave them the oldest rights to Assyria/Beth Nahreyn/Mesopotamia, older even than the Kurds who claimed descent of the ancient Medes. Some of the (religious) Suryoye disagreed and said they were descended from the biblical Arameans/Oromoye instead of the pagan Assyrians. Both have their reason for preferring their name but fact is that for thousands of years this distinction between Assyrian Suryoye and Aramean Suryoye was not made. Why make it now?
How are you going to find out which Suryoyo had Assyrian ancestors thousands of years ago and which Suryoyo had Aramean ancestors? Genetic tests won't work because of the genetical closeness between the two. You can't even use these genetic tests to tell the Kurds apart from the Suryoye in most cases, because of assimilation of Assyrians/Arameans by the Persians and Medes (ancestors of the Kurds). Kurds are supposed to be Indo-Europeans but are genetically very close to the Semitic Suryoye, Lebanese and Jews (Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA)). Many Kurds even carry the Cohen Modal Haplotype. If even Kurds (40%-50%) are of the same race as the Suryoye and Lebanese then what is the point in discussing the difference between Assyrians and Arameans. The way I see it Assyrians, Arameans, Maronites and even half the Lebanese Arabs and Kurds are all the same race. Instead of further dividing the Suryoye into Assyrians, Arameans and Chaldeans, efforts should be made to keep the Suryoyo identity. If you type Suryoyo and are redirected to Assyrian people then the Arameans are left out. Why not try to reach a consensus on what to call the Suryoye/Suryani in English? In Sweden this is accomplished by calling Arab Syrians "Syrier" and the Suryoye "Syrianer". The terms Assyrian "Assyrier" and Aramean "Arameer" also exist but both are "Syrianer" first or pertain to the ancient pre-christian peoples. This is a good solution, so why not do something similar in English? Let's keep the unity by inventing a common name for all Suryoye, acceptable for everybody. Perhaps just using the Syriac name “Suryoyo” also in English is the best solution. Suryoyo is easy enough to pronounce for westerners I think. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, we should not include them.

Ibrahim4048, quick answer; This is the article for the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. "Assyrians" or "Assyrian people" is most common. Shmayo (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Then the article should say Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People, but it doesn't. This article supports only the Assyrian nationalist view. It barely mentions the Aramean view held by almost half of the Suryoye. The article says that Arameans were assimilated by the Assyrians and ceased to exist, which is not true. Arameans claim the opposite, that with the collapse of the Assyrian Empire the Assyrians were the one assimilated by the Arameans who had already imposed the Aramean language and culture on the Assyrians long before the Assyrian Empire collapsed. How can the Arameans cease to exist when it is the Aramaic language and culture which survived? Do you mean that the Arameans physically did not survive? All the Arameans died by a mysterious disease or something? They clearly were not assimilated by the Assyrians (language/culture survived, even imposed on Assyrians) and it is ridiculous to claim that they physically did not survive. If you don't accept it that it was the Arameans who assimilated the Assyrians then you should at the very least accept that the Assyrians and Arameans merged into one people (the Christian Syrians/Suryoye/Suryani).
Regardless of which view you hold, using "Assyrian People" as a replacement for the old word "Syrian" or a translation of the Syriac "Suryoye" is just incorrect and politically biased. Assyrian means ancient Assyrians and it is used nowadays only by Suryoye who claim descent from the ancient Assyrians. It is a relatively new term. Syrian was the name used for centuries/millennia and is accepted by all Suryoye. Suryoye/Syrians/Suryani includes all the Aramaic speaking Christians, not just those who claim Assyrian descent. Assyrian People either excludes Suryoye who claim Aramean or other descent or if it includes the Arameans and others it forces the Assyrian identity on them. It doesn't matter if it is the most common word used nowadays if it is obviously incorrect. The only reason that it is used for all Suryoye now is that "Syrian" is no longer available. Giving correct information beats what is most commonly used. By the way, it shouldn't be surprising that it is the most common word used in English nowadays since the concept of Suryoye identifying as Assyrians was created by European missionaries. The suryoye always identified themselves as Syrians/Syrienne, Suryani and Suryoye not as Assyrians.
An article should first of all correctly identify about whom/what it gives information before any information is given. If the article says Assyrian People it should only be about the Assyrian subgroup of the Suryoye People without including Arameans and others. Arameans are not Assyrians. Not in ancient history and not now. Of course then you have the problem what you should use as a name for an article about the Suryoye which includes Assyrians, Arameans and Chaldeans, but you don't get rid of a difficult problem by giving a wrong solution (naming all Suryoye Assyrians). Secondly it should mention in the introduction this naming controversy which arose when the country Syria was created and the word "Syrian" was no longer used for the Christians but instead for the (Arab) inhabitants of Syria.
I understand that wikipedia uses secondary sources not primary sources and that editors shouldn't decide its content by what they think is right but what should you do if there is no consensus? Using Assyrians is wrongs because it excludes Arameans/forces the Assyrian identity on them, Syriac is wrong because it is a language not an ethnicity, Suryoye is wrong because it is Syriac not English. The only correct word is Syrian but it is obsolete and used now for the inhabitants of Syria. So what are we going to do? Make separate Assyrian People, Aramean People, Chaldean People articles and wait with making a Suryoye article till there is an academic/political consensus on a new name for the Suryoye?
Or do we make a disambiguation page where "Syrians/Syrian People" is split up in pre 1923 Christian "Syrian People" and the "Demographics of Syria which refers to inhabitants of the current country". The "Syrian People" article which refers to the Christians can contain this naming controversy and some historical info about the Christian Syrians. All the separate Assyrian, Aramean and Chaldean People articles can refer to this article to point out that they belong to the same "Suryoye" people. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How long did it take you to write this post?! This section was about including Maronites in the article! Not sure how you turned it into a conspiracy theory to "destroy" or "commit genocide" on the Syriacs. U can see this matter was discussed in previous sections and a consensus was built thru voting. U can raise the issue again if u want, but try to not accuse ppl of malice or identity genocide!_Xevorim (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It barely mentions the Aramean view held by almost half of the Suryoye. Which are "the Suryoye"? Do you mean the whole people or just the people from the Syriac Orthodox Church? Do you mean that half of this people agree with the Aramean view?!
The terms Assyrian "Assyrier" and Aramean "Arameer" also exist but both are "Syrianer" No, the Aramean side is the only one using "Syrianer".
Ibrahim, you should really read about the Assyrian identity in the Assyrian empire; 1 Shmayo (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning Clean-Up of article or face deletion!!

@ Xevorim (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long it took. What matters is that the points I made in the inclusions section are valid. It also doesn't matter that it is in the "inclusions" section (what's wrong with discussing the inclusion of Arameans in that section?), as long as it is in the right article.

Assyrian is not the translation of suryoye, it's not the same thing as "Syrians" which has been used since at least the first/second century AD and included all the suryoye. The term "Assyrians" doesn't include Arameans and others, so the article is incorrect when it mentions Arameans and others as Assyrians. If you call the article "Assyrian People" then it should be about Assyrians and not about other people. That is the first criterium for making an article on wikipedia. If you call an article "Donkey" then it shouldn't include horses and zebras and represent them as donkeys.

If you delete the Syriacs/Arameans article on top of representing them incorrectly as Assyrians, you are pushing POV and breaking wikipedia and general decency rules. You guys know that Arameans are not Assyrians and you know that using Assyrians to replace the old term "Syrians" is incorrect and pushing POV. If despite knowing this, still the Assyrian identity is forced on those suryoye who are not Assyrians then it IS malice and identity genocide.

I wasn't around when the voting took place or I would have strongly opposed. I will wait 2 weeks for the article to be cleaned up and all references to Arameans and other non Assyrians as Assyrians to be deleted. You can of course mention Arameans in the article and give info about the Assyrian/Araemean ancestry controversy and the naming controversy after the creation of Syria, but without pushing the POV that Arameans are Assyrians or that Syrians/Suryoye are Assyrians. Only ancient Assyrians are Assyrians and the part of the Syrian/Suryani/Suryoye people that chooses to claim descent of the ancient Assyrians are Assyrians. After 2 weeks I will delete whole sections of this article giving POV info and delete everything that is not properly sourced. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Aramaeans are a Bronze Age people. You may be thinking of the German term Aramäer which has indeed been used as a self-designation by some Syriacs/Assyrians in recent years. This doesn't have any currency in English. See Aramaeanism. --dab (𒁳) 13:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As the Assyrians are contemporaries of the Arameans so were the Assyrians also a Bronze Age people whose empire collapsed in the 6th century before Christ. The Neo-Babylonian Chaldean Empire was the empire that existed last in Beth Nahrain before the Persians finally took over.

You all seem to ignore the fact that there is no actual separate modern Assyrian, Aramean people different from the Syrian/Suryoyo People. These Assyrians and Arameans etc are just theories to the origin of the Syrian/Suryoyo people. The Assyrianist theory was introduced by foreigners around the 19th century and the Arameanist theory was created as a counter theory. From approx the first century after Christ up to the 1900's everybody called them Syrian/Syrienne/Suryani and they used the name Suryoye for themselves. This Syrian/Suryoyo name is an undeniable fact and has been recorded in numerous sources. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Both Assyrianists and Arameanists still accept the name Suryoye (with the addition of Athuroyo or Oromoyo behind it) whose English counterpart is Syrian.

The simple fact that Europe has created the country Syria and given it that name has brought about a split in the Suryoye. If not for Syria, the Suryoye would still use the name Syrian in English, Suryoye in Syriac and Suryani in Arabic, Kurdish and Turkish. The Assyrians and Arameans would then not be as divided as they are now. Assyrianists and Arameanists would still exist but it would only be a dispute about the origin of the Syrians/Suryoye instead of separate ethnic groups.

With the war in Iraq, the media attention and the vacuum created by the loss of the name Syrian. Assyrianists are taking the opportunity to push their Assyrian origin view on all the Suryoye. The sole fact that Arameans are not pushing the Aramean name but instead try to create a new neutral name (Syriac, same as the language used by both groups) to keep the unity is enough proof for me that the Arameanists intentions are more pure. Maybe there really should be a split between the Arameans an Assyrians. I wouldn't want to be associated with fascists. The Suryoye who call themselves Assyrians are more and more becoming nationalist fascists who with the war in Iraq smell an opportunity to create their desired homeland Assyria (unlikely since Kurds want the same land). In the process they are willing to suppress Aramean and other identities just to create a single large support block for a new Assyria. They are taking their fascist nationalist neighbours example of denying minorities in this effort. Just like Assyrians deny the smaller Aramean and Chaldean identities so are the Kurds sometimes presenting the Assyrians as Christian Kurds and deny their identity and rights in their effort for an independent Kurdistan. The Turks in turn have until the 1990's denied the existence of the Kurds and suppressed Kurdish rights. This whole Assyrian People name controversy is part of the political big fish eat smaller fish thing in the region. It is not based on historical facts or academic research at all.

The worst thing is that this tactic of vandalizing and deleting historical facts is bearing fruit. While there is a modern Assyrian People article, the modern Aramean article is repeatedly deleted and even mentioning in the ancient Aramean article that there is a modern people calling themselves Arameans is not allowed and deleted. People are exposed through Wikipedia and other sources to the Assyrian People name and it is taking root even though it is a wrong name. Doesn't anybody see the unfairness of this?

They created these fake consensus votes, which opponents of course hear nothing about, to push their view. The whole idea of voting for what is easily disprovable is idiotic. If you just use Google scholar you will see that Assyrian is a relative modern term (for the modern people), is not a synonym/translation of Suryoye and doesn't include all the Suryoye only those Suryoye who support the Assyrianist theory. Actually not even them. Supporting an origin theory doesn't just create an ethnic people. Many Maronites support a Phoenician origin theory backed up by genetic research should we call them Phoenicians now? They have a much better case than Assyrianists or Arameanists who don't have that genetic research backup (impossible to genetically differentiate between them).

There is just no English name for the Suryoye (except for the recent US consensus of Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac). Either use Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People name in the title or just don't make this article about the whole Suryoye people. If this article is called Assyrian People then Syriac People and Chaldean People articles should be allowed to exist. You can't call the article Assyrian people and then give information about Arameans/Syriacs and Chaldeans as if they were all Assyrians. By using these dirty tactics the Assyrians are getting step by step closer to pushing their view and destroying the other identities.

A real solution for this naming problem would be to reclaim the Syrian name and make a Syrian People article which disambiguates between Syrians (Christians) and Syrians (inhabitants of Syria). This way somebody who reads an old book from before 1920 wouldn't be confused when he looks up the name Syrian. The Syrians (Christians) article should give information about this name/origin controversy and link to either separate Assyrian, Chaldean and Syriac People or a combined Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People article.

When I have time I am going to start deleting all the Aramean/Syriac and Chaldean material in this article, add the origin theory not separate group info and make the Syrians disambiguation page and the Syriac/Chaldean People article Ibrahim4048 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian versus Assyrian/Syriac in text

The whole debate about what to call this article was pointless if editors are continually trying to change the references in the text to something besides "Assyrian". The consensus earlier was that the name "Assyrian" was the best name to use for this article. If that is the case, then within the article itself, then the best reference is a simple "Assyrian" as well. The other versions of the name are well-delineated in the very first sentence. After that, then a simple reference "Assyrian" that matches the article title is the best encyclopedic writing style. Compare, for example, Wikipedia style for naming "Macedonia". The first reference within an article mentions "Republic of Macedonia", perhaps clarifying that this is the Macedonia that was part of Yugoslavia, then further references are simply to "Macedonia". This is standard writing practice. Here, the first sentence clarifies that "Assyrian" is also called X, Y, and Z. But then the simplified reference should be used in all further sentences. When the move request from Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac was decided in favor of "Assyrian", that should have settled the matter. (Taivo (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

Concur. The consensus is now leaning towards "Assyrian" not only here but in all the related articles. Even the first sentence of the lead is repetitive and uncyclopedic. IMO, it should read "The Assyrian people bla bla" and in the parenthesis we should have all the alternative names, but I do not intend to edit it, and enter into another nonsentic edit war. Maybe a note explaining that "Assyrian" is the prevailing term in English (a remark now in the parenthesis) could also be added. In any case, I am happy the article(s) move away from the ugly slashes, which have nothing to do with a healthy encyclopedic approach.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

there is no such consensus. I doubt either of you has taken the pains to actually look into "most common English usage". If you want to make the claim that "Assyrian" is significantly more common than other names in relevant, recent, independent, English langauge sources, be my guest and present the case already. I am not holding my breath, because (a) that would be work, and (b) you are probably not going to like the outcome. The fact of the matter is that recent (2000s), official (governments) English language sources have tended to use "slashed" names. Please see the archives: I have actually invested some time in figuring this out. I find it rather cheap to replace actual effort of fact-finding by simple repeating the same unsubstantiated claim over and over until it begins to sound true. This isn't encyclopedic. --dab (𒁳) 13:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, it seems clear to me that you haven't read this very talk page or else you would see that the community reached a consensus that "Assyrian" was the most appropriate title for this article. If it's the most appropriate title, then it is also the most appropriate reference within the article. I'm not edit warring, I'm only supporting the community consensus. It is you who are trying to subvert the consensus above. (Taivo (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people → Assyrian people — The page was moved without discussion or agreement. Even thou we have previously agreed to move it back, admins have ignored all discussions regarding the issue. This is not the name of an ethnic group. It goes against Wikipedia's rule of one name per article. Wikipedia should not be a place to start some kind of a revolution by unifying certain groups. Chaldean Christians and Syriac people already exist. And if we were to put all those pages together, then a google test shows that the most common term used to desribe the entire group is Assyrian people.

The rationale of most of the voters to support this move was because articles about the chaldeans and Arameans/Syriacs already existed. The idea was to have separate articles for the groups. This move was ok if it only gave information about the Assyrians, and that is even the condition some of the voters made for their support. That is what I also have been trying to achieve all this time. But in the current situation the Syriac article is deleted and "Syriac People" links to this article and this article has become more than just about the Assyrians, it has become an article about Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People again, which it was voted not to be about. This current article contradicts and violates the consensus that was made. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Then rather than making the references in the text unreadable and different than the title of the article, the discussion about what this article should contain needs to be completed. Right now, the article is written with "Assyrian" as the title and "Assyrian" as the textual references. Come to a consensus about the name of the article and the content of the article (plus any other articles that are necessary), and the issue of what to call the people referred to in the article will resolve itself. Right now, the consensus that was built was about the title of the article and what the article should contain. Make it contain that and create any other articles that are necessary to contain other information. But using a single name in the title and a mishmash of slashed names in the article text is unacceptable practice and style. (Taivo (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

I can't believe you keep claiming that there is any sort of "consensus" here when this is clearly not the case. I have repeatedly explained that the move discussion did not express any sort of consensus, but was rushed through under false pretenses. I have pointed out the problems in detail, repeatedly, to Yannismarou, whose only reaction was IDHT. I keep seeing the same circular arguments. What I do not see is anyone presenting a clean review of sources. But this is what Wikipedia is about. We don't have opinions, we evaluate sources. If you cannot be bothered to back up whatever it is you feel this article should say with a coherent argument based on quotable literature, you simply have no business contributing to the topic. --dab (𒁳) 14:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks from you aside, I was very clear in what I had to say. 1) The article is called simply "Assyrian" in conformity with Wikipedia policy on article names that deprecates slashed forms. 2) If separate articles for Syrian, Chaldean, etc. are necessary, then make them. 3) Naming within the article should mimic the article's title and not be some mishmash of slashed forms. If you have been unable to convince a consensus of editors of your POV, then that should tell you something. Yannismarou is a fair and thoughtful admin. We have not always agreed on things, but he is a good admin. If he thinks you are spitting into the wind on this, then perhaps you should reconsider your position. (Taivo (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC))
Many sources make clear distinctions between Assyrian communities and Chaldean communities in the Aramaic-speaking world. Shouldn't these be separate articles then? Or have the diasporae of these groups joined into a single ethnic group? (Taivo (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC))
The article already exist; Chaldean Christians. Don't take dab too serious. Personal attacks is one of many different ways he uses to try to distance you from the issue, so that he can have the article all to himself. He has made it very clear to be partisian on this issue. He has demostrated in the past 4 years to be a strong advocate of trying to replace anything Assyrian with Syriac in Wikipedia. Iraqi (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and you're a saint and also, you're completely and utterly neutral (see irony). The TriZ (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
There was an perfect article named "Syriac people" [43] but now it is redirected to this article, which is totally wrong. The Syriac people article must be recreated. Dejwono (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

unindent That is what I am trying to say. The Assyrianists here justify naming this article "Assyrian People" by claiming that slashes in the name of an article is not allowed, thus disqualifying "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People" as the article name. Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac is the US naming consensus for the Suryoye/Suryani People formerly known as (Christian) Syrians. By claiming that there was a consensus for naming this article "Assyrian People" they further try to push the Assyrian name on all Suryoye/Suryani/Christian Syrians. There was indeed such a consensus but the voting was rushed through without properly informing all parties and above all, it was accepted under the conditions that it would only deal with the "Assyrians" and not the Arameans and Chaldeans. This was decided because there were already "Chaldean Christians" and "Syriac People" articles at that time. Now the Assyrianists have violated that agreement by deleting the Syriac People article and redirecting it to this article. The Assyrian People article also includes information about Arameans and Chaldeans which is a violation of that agreement. I know that it is difficult to find info about Assyrians alone (since it is a political idea/theory, not an actual separate people) without involving the other Suryoye (Arameans and Chaldeans) but that is just too bad. If you insist on an article about the whole Suryoye people then you'll have to find a new name to replace the old name Syrian or you'll just have to use the name "Suryoye" in Syriac or the US consensus "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" with the slashes.

I already warned that I would start deleting whole sections of this article which were dealing with the whole suryoye people instead of just the assyrians. This means that the Assyrian genocide section will be deleted since there are no sources which mention Assyrians alone without including the Arameans and Chaldeans. The article would be greatly diminished as a whole. That would be idiotic to do but if Assyrians insist on calling this article Assyrian People that would be the only right thing to do. I just haven't had the time to do it properly yet.

Either come with a solution for the naming problem yourselves or accept my proposition of reclaiming the old "Syrians" name and disambiguating it into the Syrians (pre-1920 adherents of Syriac Christianity) and Syrians (Inhabitants of the Modern Country Syria) articles. This would be the best thing to do and would solve the confusion about the word Syrians too. All pre-1920 sources talking about "Syrians" are talking about the christian Suryoye not about the modern (mostly muslim) Syrians because Syria didn't excist yet. Without this disambiguation people might think the inhabitants of Syria all suddenly converted from christianity to islam somewhere in the 20th century. The article about the old Christian Syrians would then contain the info that once this group was considered a single group but in recent decades it has splintered into Assyrians, Arameans and Chaldeans for political and religious reasons. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge with "Syriac Christians"

Syriac Christians are an Arabic/Aramaic-speaking ethinc minorty of the Middle East. These people have always been known as "Syriac Christians" but not anything else. It has been just recently that different factions of these people started claiming descenent from different peoples of the anceint Middle East (Assyrians, Chaldeans, Aramaeans, Phoenician, Chinese, etc.). Until these people agree among themselves on a certain national myth, it is really idiotic to adopt a certain disputed claim and make it the title of a bogus article in what claims to be an encyclopedia. I have not seen such an entry in any other encyclopedia -- these people are always listed under "Syriac Chrsiatins." "Assyrians" has an umbigious meaning in the scholrarly world that has nothing to do with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.86.31.169 (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, everything you have said is either not true or not logical. First of all, how can a religion be defined as an ethnicity? Your second statment of "they have always been known as syriac christians" is simply not true. First of all, Syriac Christians is a religious group, where it includes people streching from Lebanon to India. Thus, its not an ethnic or national group. And besides, Wikipedia asks us to use the most common English word used for the title,and after 10s of different methods done, Assyrian has shown to be used the most frequent.

Misspelt Word

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

A New Hope

Clearly the Assyrian/Syraic/etc peoples need a single leader who can impose their will apon the masses and forge a new Empire! Stop your bickering and start your conquering! I, Sargon the MMCDDDXVIII, am prepared to become that leader. We must form legions and invade! First iraq, seizing key cities, then invading the syrian state to forge a new world sea power! Eventually we shall annex india and all territories between here and there, reuniting with our Indian co-religionists! With the support Yazdanis, Zoroastrians, Bahá'ís, and Mandaeians we cannot fail!!!! We shall be welcomed as conquerors!

Sounds great only, I am the one to lead... sorry bud to many chiefs and not enough Assyrians. We need a united council with an elected leader. By the way my dream was to become president of the Republic of Earth and to be officially recognized as Sargon III. KEEP DREAMIN!!! lol... As far as this article goes we really need politics out of it. --Sharru Kinnu III (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle and Self-expression" By Mordechai Nisan. Page 181.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_9&oldid=1136535084"