Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Over-referencing in lede

@Mugsalot: With your recent edit [1], the lede paragraph is now quite heavily over-referenced. I'm not taking any position on the appropriateness of any of the content, and I can sort of understand why in a contentious article like this one might want to secure any edit with extra notes, but come on: 28 footnotes in a passage of just 56 words, in 9 different positions in the text, coming in batches of up to 6 notes in a row, pointing to 10 distinct works in the ref list – that's simply not reader-friendly. Could you please reduce those footnotes to a reasonable number and instead list the works here on talk, explaining here what exactly they say and how they serve to support the wording you chose? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I completely understand your cause for concern, and I will admit I was paranoid of making an edit that may be perceived as an attempt at pushing an POV. May I ask what you would consider a reasonable number of footnotes?

• UNPO Assyria [2] is referenced 5 times in total:

• After the statement that the terms Chaldean and Syriac are used to refer to Assyrians: "Assyrians are also referred to as Chaldeans, or Syriacs"
• After the statement that Assyrians are a Christian people: "Religion: Christianity (Orthodox and Catholic)"
• After the statement that Assyrians are indigenous to the Middle East: "The Assyrians’ ancestral homeland is spread over northern Iraq, northern Iran, south-eastern Turkey and southern Syria"
• After the statement that most Assyrians speak a Neo-Aramaic language: "Language: Assyrian, which also is referred to as Neo-Aramaic, Chaldean and Syriac."

• Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: A-C [3] is referenced 5 times in total:

• After the statement that the term Syriac is used to refer to Assyrians: "Assyrians; Assurayee; Aturaya; Syriacs" (p. 205)
• After the statement that Assyrians are a Christian people: "A Christian people, the Assyrians are the adherents of a bewildering variety of Christian sects" (p. 206)
• After the statement that Assyrians are indigenous to the Middle East and a semitic people: "The Assyrians...are not Arabs but a Semitic people indigenous to Mesopotamia" (p. 206)
• After the statement that the Assyrians are an ethnoreligious group: "The third-largest ethnoreligious group in Iraq, the Assyrians" (p. 209)

• Native Peoples of the World: An Encylopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues [4] (p. 517) is referenced 4 times in total:

• After the statement that the terms Chaldean and Syriac are used to refer to Assyrians: "Assyrians, also referred to as Chaldeans or Syriacs"
• After the statement that Assyrians are a Christian people: "A great majority of the Assyrian peoples are Christians"
• After the statement that Assyrians are indigenous to the Middle East: "Assyrians are an indigenous people of Iraq"

• Encyclopedia of the World's Minorities [5] (p. 149) is referenced 3 times:

• After the statement that Assyrians are indigenous to the Middle East: "Location: Traditionally centered in Iraq, Iran, and Turkey"
• After the statement that most Assyrians speak a Neo-Aramaic language, as well as another language, dependent on the country of residence: "Language: Syriac, or modern Assyrian, but most will also speak another language...depending on country of residency"

• Who Are The Assyrians? [6] is referenced 3 times:

• After the statement that the terms Chaldean, Syriac, and Aramean are used to refer to Assyrians: "the people that call themselves any of the above things (Chaldeans, Aramaeans, Syriacs) today are...of Assyrian origin"

• Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle and Self-Expression [7] (p. 180) is referenced twice:

• After the statement that the term Chaldean is used to refer to Assyrians: "At times called Chaldeans"
• After the statement that Assyrians are indigenous to the Middle East: "Initially a people in Mesopotamia"

• Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society [8] (p. 107) is referenced once:

• After the statement that Assyrians are indigenous to the Middle East: "the ancestral homelands of these people(s), in what is now southeastern Turkey, northeastern Syria, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran"

Mugsalot (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, this list is certainly useful. I'd just caution that the "Who are the Assyrians?" page from nestorian.org [9] appears to be from a partisan organisation in those identity debates, so there are likely to be objections against its use for this purpose. The other sources look quite suitable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Participants were warned at the outset that the only valid kind of argument would be to document current usage in reliable sources, per WP:COMMONNAME. Proponents of the move have spectacularly failed to heed this notice. The main proponent (Sr 76) has brought forward numerous citations, but they all appear to be geared towards debating the tired old ideological issue of the factual correctness of Assyrian "continuity", rather than present-day naming practices. People are apparently still finding it hard to comprehend that these are unrelated issues. All the other "support" votes are easily discarded, as almost all of them come from single-purpose accounts on the same side of the ideological debate, and (more importantly) because they make even less contact with Wikipedia policy, being mostly based purely on personal ideological preference and politics. Against this, opponents of the move have at least given some indication of what they think current English naming practice is (De Causa and Moxy, who incidentally are also the only participants from outside the entrenched native POV parties, both provided valid material). While this doesn't rise to the level of having actually demonstrated and proved the predominance of the "Assyrian" naming practice, given the utter lack of evidence to the contrary, their argument wins the day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Assyrian people → Syriac people – Resolving the long running issue of edit-warring and disputes and references and the page content will be consistent the academic consensus Sr 76 (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I am for the move to Syriac people, everyone has the right to be identify with their heritage in a manner that is respectful and dignified. Regardless of Christian denomination, national aspirations and political allegiances......the Maronites, Assyrians, Arameans, Chaldeans, Syriac Catholics and Nestorians...etc.

The name Syriac hosts all these people in a manner that is not contentious and also happens to be the academic consensus in representing these people.Sr 76 (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I will warn you from the outset that this is not going to happen, and your votes will be discounted, unless you finally start doing the only thing that will turn this into a valid enterprise: start documenting current usage in reliable sources. You have not yet done anything of the sort. Arguments based on your personal perception of what the self-identification of these people is and what might or might not be contentious with them, of the kind you stated in this nomination, are worthless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

OK @Future Perfect at Sunrise: I'll keep it short. Sources:

Brock, Butts, Kiraz, Van Rompay, "Encyclopedic Dictionary of Syriac Heritage"
"there are isolated references that connect the Syriac Christians with the ancient Assyrians, but this idetification was not developed until the 19th century"
page 45

S.Brock, "An introduction to Syriac Studies"
"Various alternatives have been adopted, including (by the more secular minded) 'Assyrian' which has caused considerable controversy (and trouble in some countries); a better choice would seem to be 'Aramean'"
...
"I have used West Syriac and East Syriac as the most practical general designations"
p68

David Gaunt, Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim Christian Relations in Eastern Anatolia During WWI
"The aboriginal Syriacs of northern Mesopotamia and Persia were amoung the very first to convert to Christianity."
page 2
"As a generic term I use 'Syriac' here to designate all of the Christians who use variant of the Aramaic language."
page 3

Aron Butts: Lector of Semitics in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Yale University,
Assyrian Christians
"It is well known that various individuals and groups associated with the Syriac Heritage are today called Assyrians."
"What is less understood is when, how, and why this identification came about. This has unfortunately led to a good deal of controversy and misunderstanding. Within the Syriac communities, the so called “name debate” continues to be a hotly discussed topic, especially in the diaspora." "The present essay is not concerned with evaluating the legitimacy of connections between the Syriac Heritage and ancient Assyria. Rather, it assumes as a given that certain individuals and groups associated with the Syriac Heritage have in the past identified as Assyrian and continue to do so until the present. The essay does, however, take up the more modest task of outlining the historical background for the events that led to the promotion of this identification in the nineteenth century and to the ensuing development of an Assyrian ideology within the Syriac communities."..... "In premodern Syriac sources, the term athoraya 'Assyrian' is not the typical self designation for individuals belonging to the Syriac Heritage, whether East Syriac or West Syriac. The typical selfdesignations, rather, are aramaya 'Aramean' and suryaya 'Syrian,' along with its truncated variant suraya. The early Syriac author Bardai an, for instance, is described both as aramaya and suryaya in the Syriac version of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History (Wright and McLean 1898: 243.18 and 183.7, respectively), which was translated before 420 (Van Rompay 1994: 73 n. 15). The adjectives aramaya and suryaya serve as the typical self designations for Syriac Christians throughout the premodern sources."

John Joseph,
"Throughout the 19th century the Nestorians were also refered to as Syrians by the European travlers and writers. Indeed, the 'Syrians" (Suraye/Suroyo) was the name by which the "Nestorians" and "Jacobites" called themselves until the post-WWI period; thereafter, Suraye was gradually replaced amoung the 'Nestorians' by Aturaye, the name of the ancient Assyrians in Syriac. The 'Jacobites' continue to call themselves Sroyo""
page 9

Kathleen E. McVey, Ephriam the Syrian
"Neither a member of a monastic community nor a hermit, he was given instead an ascetic of a peculiarly Syrian sort"
page xi

@Sr 76: Most of your quotes are irrelevant to your move request and two actually support keeping Assyrian people if you apply WP policy. You need to study WP:COMMONNAME. It doesn't matter why a name has become commonly used (or even if that is a "bad" reason), it only is an issue of whether it is commonly used by reliable sources. Two of your qutes specifically say Assyrian is the common name. What you need to show is that in reliable sources (i.e. modern works of reference in English - not historical documents) "Syriac" is used more commonly than "Assyrian" - and self designation is not relevant. You haven't shown that yet. DeCausa (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @DeCausa:, but none of them specifically say "Assyrian" is the common name. Im not sure what you are reading. Some groups may call themselves Assyrians but the rest don't.......thats what the sources are referring to. Simply referring to the name Assyrian doesn't mean the writer is suggesting that Assyrian is the common or the most common name across ALL these groups. I don't think you have understood the situation, the common name is Syriac no-one disputes this or denies this name across ALL the groups. This is evident from even from the discussion in the above section.

I know the St Ephram the Syrian quote is out of left field, but I put that as an example of the how the Assyrian people page confuses the issue. If you have an identity that in every possible reference know is called Syrian/Syriac then why is St Ephram on the Assyrian people page?

I strung those quotes together in 15 minutes, ill go through my books and produce more.

BTW you wont be able to find a reliable reference that does what you are asking for the name Assyrian, anyway. This is just a double standard that exists because the page is currently title "Assyrian people", which is a result of Assyrian breaking Wikipedia policies anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shmayo

Sr 76 (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You are going about this the wrong way. It's not about any particular source. You need to present a survey of reliable modern sources and say "these all use 'Syriac'" and not Assyrian. Ideally, you would also say "this compares to these sources who use 'Assyrian' and the sources who use 'Syriac' are preponderant". Often, this is supported with search results in Google Books etc but that may not be helpful here because of the multiple meanings of the words. You need to stay away from commentary on which is "more correct" or which is used by the people themselves. What will sway the neutrals drawn to this move request is the preponderance of the use of one word versus the other in reliable sources. And, btw, it would be quite wrong of you to claim that there are no reliable sources that use Assyrian. I see John Joseph's book, who you quote, is named "The modern Assyrians of the Middle East" and a quick Google Books search reveals multiple academic usage of the term for the modern people and, from Google, multiple usage in reliable news outlets. I would say you have an uphill task. I don't know enough about the subject to have a strong view one way or the other - so I await to see your case with interest. DeCausa (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

One further point. You say "Some groups may call themselves Assyrians but the rest don't.......thats what the sources are referring to. Simply referring to the name Assyrian doesn't mean the writer is suggesting that Assyrian is the common or the most common name across ALL these groups." This article should be about the group which reliable sources call "Assyrian". If there are other groups that this article covers but which reliable sources don't call Assyrian, then they should come out of this article. It's not a reason to change the name of the article. And, as I've said, what the groups themselves call themselves is irrelevant: the question is what do English-language reliable sources call them. DeCausa (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa your request is very specific, you want me to present you with a survey. If I was to put together a survey myself and present it to you, are you then going to turn around and say that you meant a survey produced by reliable academic in peer reviewed publication?

You now have a double standard. Everything else was about consensus, but now you need a survey? Show me the survey that lead to the Syriac people page being deleted? Show me the survey that meant the Arameans page was just for the ancient Arameans? show me the survey that lead to the Chaldean people page being deleted?

Besides you have created a logical anomaly, for any survey....based on the John Joseph example you gave. If an academic uses the name Assyrian, more often then not in today's context it is to refute the use of the modern name Assyrian. It seems to be the only interest academics have in the Assyrians these days. Why should this count as "use" of the name Assyrian? Off-course they are going to use the name Assyrian to refute the name Assyrian. For example John Joseph and Adam Becker wrote entire books about false origins of the name Assyrian in the 19th century, these should count as uses of the name Assyrian? Go ask the modern Assyrians what they think of J.Joseph and A.Becker.

@DeCausa: if an atheist were to write a book about the falsehood of religion, does this mean he is not allowed use the word 'God' in that book? If he did use the word 'God' in any context would you accuse him of being a devout Christian?Sr 76 (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen or been involved in other move requests before? You don't seem to get how they work. Go and have a look at a few. I don't, at the moment, have a view as to what this article should be called. I'm waiting for you to put your case forward before deciding. The onus is on you to justify what you want to do. If you can't then the default position is the status quo. I'll repeat, what's expected of you as the proposer is to show that the commonest name used in modern English-language reliable sources for this group of people is "Syriac". It's quite simple really. Have you read WP:COMMONNAME? DeCausa(talk) 07:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for the time being absent Sr 76 providing evidence of Syriac being the COMMONNAME. From my (imperfect) research, Assyrian seems to be widely used in reliable news sources [10] [11] and academic sources [12]. Just as a general indicator, and not to be relied on of course, Google Books searches gives 552 results for "Assyrian people" + Iraq [13] and 638 for "Assyrian people" + Syria [14] compared to 234 for "Syriac people + Iraq" [15] and 276 for "Syriac people" + Syria [16]. (the addition of "people" and, in the case of Iraq, the modern country name hopefully takes out most of the references to the ancient Assyrians). Although many of these results are not on point, I'm not seeing a strong and obvious case for replacing Assyrian with Syriac. I'll keep this page under review though and if evidence of Syriac beeing the COMMONNAME is brought forward I would be happy to revise my Oppose. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support Did you actually read Sr 76's proposal? "This will page will refer TO THE COMMON CHRISTIAN PERIOD leaving all political POVs ambiguous from their ancient namesakes. Leaving the "Arameans" page, "Assyrians" page and "Chaldeans" page to refer to the ancient peoples. None of these groups can deny their Syriac identity, if they did they would need to forgo 2000 years of heritage." Sr 76 provided academic sources in English that the common and widely accepted name is Syriac/Syrian during the Christian period before the Syriac Christians started to establish various national movements, e.g. Assyrians, Arameans, Chaldeans etc.. Trying to make Ephrem the Syrian an Assyrian is misleading and distorting for someone who is familiar with this topic otherwise you can make Julius Caesar an Italian. Even German Wikipedia do not regard Ephrem the Syrian as an Aramean either, only as Syriac/Syrian since there was no Aramean national movement at this time despite his statements regarding the synonymity between Syriac and Aramean. English Wikpedia shouldn't degenerated into a propaganda platform by supporting a certain idelogy and remain neutral. I don't understand, why English Wikipedia cannot do the same as German Wikipedia and distinguish between national movements (Arameans (Christianity), Assyrians (present)), ancient peoples (Arameans, Assyrians) and Christian period (Suryoye/Suraye or Syriacs)? If readers look up for Information about the Assyrians who are currently persecuted in Iraq, they could simply get redirected to an article that is about modern Assyrians and Assyrian nationalism, e.g. Assyrians (Christians) leaving the Christian period (Syriac people) and ancient people (Assyrians) articles alone for readers who are looking for specific Information about these topics. --Suryoyo124 (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  Yes I did read it. In order for an article to be moved there are specific policy requirements that need to be addressed. Sr 71 hasn't addressed. Most of his points are irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. He subsequently posted a message on my talk page pointing out his justification for the move in his edit request of 25 June. For info, this is my response (hatted because it includes a cut and paste of his original post). It pretty much covers the same ground as your points.

Commentary on Sr 76's edit request of 25 June 2015
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reasoning The name Syriac (Suryoyo) is accepted by all the Arameans, Assyrians and Chaldeans. All Christian Churches from the near east trace their origins to Syriac tradition including the Maronites (how can people that far west be Assyrian's?), all have a Syriac Aramaic liturgy.Irrelevant. That has no bearing on WP:COMMONNAME. What English language reliable sources use, not the people themselves is the test. Syriac avoids the complex historical issues and the problem of people promoting their own political ideologies. Since every ideology does not deny the Syriac identity. What an individual considers his ancient ancestors becomes irrelevant, since the term Syriac only came to be used by the Syriacs themselves during the Christian period. Naming the page Syriac People (Arameans/Assyrians/Chaldeans) causes little historical contention. This also makes finding sources and references for the page very simple and compliant with the academic consensus.Irrelevant. Read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Avoiding "complex historical issues" and people promoting ideologies is not a reason to avoid a term which English language reliable sources use. Right now, none of the page has any valid sources, because Assyrian history since the fall of Ninveh in 615BC (from the perspective of the modern-Assyrians) was simply made up by the modern-Assyrians that got their name in the 19th cenurty. Irrelevant. Has no bearing on article name. If there is unsourced material in the article, that should be addressed by editing the article. Calling the page "Syriac People (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)" is verifiable, Non Original research and Neural view point.Has a bearing, but does not address the main question of what do English-language reliable sources use Calling the page "Assyrian People" falls short on all fronts is NOT-verifiable, NOT-Non Original research and NOT-Neural view point.All violations of the Wikipedia naming protocols.There's already on the page plenty of sources cited which indicate that what you say is incorrect Changing the name to "Syriac People (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)" would comply with the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.This applies to "Assyrian people" too Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.This applies to "Assyrian people" too Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.This applies to "Assyrian people" too, according to the cited sources on the page Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.This applies to "Assyrian people" too Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. This applies to "Assyrian people" too Current Ambiguity. The page being called Assyrian people does not distinguish between the modern-Assyrians and the ancient-Assyrians, naturally this happens to be the ideological agenda of the modern-Assyrians.Irrelevant, provided English language reliable sources use the term in this way. The current academic consensus considers the modern-Assyrian identity to be introduced by Western Missionaries during the 19th century A.D and any ancestral connection between the two, to be "hog wash".Irrelevant. Doesn't matter how it got to be the COMMONNAME, provided it is the COMMONNAME The widely criticized Simon Parpola is the "only academic" that supports the claims of the modern-Assyrian's ancestry, please see the following sources:Irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether Assyrian is right or justified - it's the usage in reliable sources that count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14#Origin.27s_of_today.27s_Assyrian_Identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14#Reference_-_Simon_Parpola The Synonymity issue becomes a void argument. Weather synonymity of the word Syriac is with Aramean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Syrian.2FSyriac_synonyms_with_Aramean) or the word Syriac is Synonymous with Assyrian, with my proposal either answer becomes irrelevant. What do i mean by this: If the Assyrians are correct, and word Syriac means Assyrian then the why would they object to the page being called Syriac People instead of Assyrian people? Any objection is politically driven.Irrelevant. The motivation of Assyrians has no bearing - only usage in English-language sources. If the Arameans are correct, and word Syriac means Aramean then the why would they object to the page being called Syriac People instead of Aramean people? Any objection is politically driven.Irrelevant. The motivation of Arameans has no bearing - only usage in English-language sources. By doing this Wiki-Admin can easily identify ideological and political POVs being inserted into Wikipedia pages.Irrelevant. There is no ground in our article naming policy which allows for article naming to be manipulatd for this purpose. The St Ephram the Syrian example St Ephram called the Assyrians "Filth". He also refered to "our nation Aram-Nahrin". His contenporaries called him "Aramean" and "the crown of the Arameans" All irrelevant. Has no bearing on usage in English-language reliable sources It is impossible to look up any refence that refers to St Ephram as an Assyrian and yet St Ephriam the Syrian is displayed on the Assyrian People page as an Assyrian. The ONLY way St Ephriam can be an Assyrian is to accomodate a political POV of the modern-Assyrians....that is: The current page.Irrelevant. Has no bearing on usage in English-language reliable sources Consistency with Academic Sources Wikipedia has become inconsistent with the academic sources. Right now looking at Wikipeadia would send someone in a direction of complete confusion. Even the further reading section of the page, does not match the content of the page, the Saint Ephriam example above is a good example of this. This is an assertion without evidence - you need to present a survey of academic sources that show this

DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose : Assyrian is and has been the most widely used appellation for those Aramaic-speaking peoples of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey in the English language for the last two centuries. It is how the group is and has been referenced to in politics, academia, and other media. Penguins53 (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Penguins53
• Oppose : as per Moxy (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources

References

• Oppose :
  

About Sr 76 request and position:
I think he's right that Syriac is by far the most used name in academic studies especially in the field of Syriac Christianity and Semitic Languages. Most researchers, scientists will not bother themselves and take a stance in our internal dispute name. You have even the Syriac Orthodox Church who uppset by this internal dispute, refuted the name Assyrian and Aramean after it synods in 1981, and even recently the new Patriarch reaffirmed the position of the Church. Moreover Syriac is the academic name to study us as subject (of study), and researcher, students, will sometimes use East-Syriac or West-Syriac to be more precise etc. Even today some still use Syrian Christians and divide their subject (us) into West-Syrian and East-Syrian. Note at least that even in academic sutdies Assyrian (to designate our people) is heavily used, see the work of Pr. Frye and Pr. Parpolla but just like any academics studies it's discutable. This is an academic approach and Wikipedia will just benefit from this.
Why I oppose:
Assyrian has always been the name used by World institutions, English speaking institution etc to address our case. Just after the Seyfo (Assyrian Genocide), the Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church of this time, Mor Ephrem Barsoum used in his letter here "our ancient Assyrian nation" for the syriac speaking people of the 3 followings sects: Church of the East, Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Church, Chaldean Catholic Church. This was the same for the Patriarch of the Church of the East when he adressed our case to the United Nation. in Syria under the French mandate, The French formed militias composed of Assyrians (Bataillon Assyro-Chaldéen Fench minisitry source). The British formed the Assyrian levies (mostly composed of Church of the East members, but you had also hundred of Syriac Orthodox members from Syria (Djazirah) and Turkey (Tur'Abdin), unfortunately I can't retrieve SuroyoTV's documentary). Now, if you take Google Trends (statistics about most researched topics/words etc) which collects Data from 2004, you can see that Assyrian is by far the most used name (note the country in blue where there is big communities of Assyrians: Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Sweden, USA, Australia...), note also the related research (assyrian, süryani (in Turkish), etc.) to the point that Google says that there is not enough data for Syriac People. To return to "Our case", let's consult the web site of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, here again, you can see that assyrian is the most used name for our people (Assyrian gives 58 results while Syriac only 5), here an article about refugees, you can see that the Iraqi towns of Qaraqosh, which is mostly populated by Syriac Catholics and few Syriac Orthodox is referred as Assyrian. So, since the Seyfo, our people has always been designate under the name Assyrian, of course not only this name but it's the most used name in the English language. So let's stick to the real word and choose the decision that will the most help us to adress our case to the media and the world.
About this page:
This page is not about Maronites, Melkites (Greek Orthodox/Catholics) or people "West of Euphrate" who just began, for the vast majority, only 10-20 years (and I'm pretty nice, most of these peoples have been pan-arabists during the 20th century) to reject Arab identity. This page is for our people who live in the upper valley of Mesopotamia and its historical cities (Nsibin, Edessa, Mardin, Dyarbakir (Omid), Rish'Ayno, Urmia all Syriac speaking cities inhabited by Church of the East and Syriac Orthodox (and now they Catholics dupes) followers). For this people decimated by the Seyfo and still fighting to this day for his survival. 'AynHaylo (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Shmayo (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support I support the move of the page to the name Syriac people. Even if you look at the current page it needs to have the word Syriac as the first bit of information, because without Syriac the people have no meaning, because the word Assyrian is deficient in describing who these people actually are ArameanSyriac (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Syriac is the only name that is fair and logical to me. It connects us( assyrians, arameans, chaldeans) as one, unlike the word assyrian, that separates usSyrius777 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Although the move proposal has good intentions, it obviously does not follow WP:COMMONNAME. Mugsalot (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this how Wikipedia works according to the motto:"Big fish eats small fish"? Does Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME rule also accept to hide and twist facts like they used to do on this and other articles, because Assyrian is more common than Aramean, Syriac or Chaldean? Every academic source about Arameans or Syriacs is wrong then? How do you make sure that Wikipedia keeps its credibility as an encyclopedia and that readers won't get confused and mislead through possible Assyrian POV editing with the ancient Assyrians (See "Assyrians after Assyria" section in the "Assyria article"), Assyrian nationalism/ideology (Best example:AynHaylo's comment regarding ethnicity) and all the Syriac Christian groups (including those who reject this appellation) but are labeled as Assyrians by simply calling everything Assyrian? Everyone who is not familar with this issue, e.g. would assume that St Ephram and other Syriac-Arameans ,since they are all called "Assyrians", are the same people as the ancient people (Assyrians), whereas high quality academic sources in English (Sr 76 has provided some of them) would reject this. The question is how can Wikipedia even though "Assyrian" being the common name for Mesopotamian Syriac Christians in English avoid such misconception and misuse of this appellation, because this is exactly what Assyrian POV editing intends. --Suryoyo124 (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Suryoyo124: I think in this situation it would be best to approach it similarly to that of Arab people. In the West, Coptic and Palestinian Christians, for example, are commonly referred to as Arab Christians. That may not be factually correct as many Copts and Palestinian people do not see themselves as Arabs but are considered Arab regardless. As a result, to remedy this, Wikipedia expands on this and if one was to look at the article for Arab Christians, one will see that WP:COMMONNAME is adhered to, but simultaneously their separate identities are acknowledged. Therefore, on the Assyrian people article perhaps it would be more acceptable to acknowledge that it is applied to all Aramaic speaking Christians in the Middle East, and that multiple identities exist within that category. Mugsalot (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mugsalot: @DeCausa:Because it is a source of great offence to these people to be labeled Assyrian. It is not simply a case of being right or wrong it strikes at their very core. Even as @'AynHaylo has pointed out, that the Syriac Orthodox church has rejected all appellations except for Syrian/Syriac for the people to use. For some people being Assyrian is fine, for others being anything other than Syriac is an act of defiance of their religious belief. Sr 76 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not relevant here. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If that's where you are coming from, you are wasting your time. DeCausa (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have posted some sources below, even @'AynHaylo said Syriac the most used in his first paragraph (only now he admits it, because he knows the extent of what can be collated). His final sentence sums-up this entire issue "This is an academic approach and Wikipedia will just benefit from this."...."JUST"???.....@DeCausa: in other words the Assyrians wont benefit from it? "just" Wikipedia will benefit from the change? thanks for the freudian-slip @'AynHaylo. I have been saying it for the past year. Wikipedia has been used as a propaganda platform for the Assyrians.Sr 76 (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

off-topic squabbles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why did you ping me for that? I'm loosing patience with you. I don't care what another user said. Whatever he said has no bearing on me. I can see that there are two clashing POVs here. So what? I couldn't care less. DeCausa (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC) @Future Perfect at Sunrise You as an admin knew this issue for almost six years or maybe even longer, claiming "POV forks won't be accepted" in 2009 and obviously haven't done anything till nothing against it or how do you explain this mess? I've noticed that you only get active once someone draws attention on it and it often ends with unfair blockings that even people with good intentions are fed up with Wikipedia and leave it completely. With your administration you've cleared the way for Assyrian POV editing. Are you aware of your responsibility as an admin?--Suryoyo124 (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support I can't believe that it has been allowed to get this far. The name Assyrian is wrong and it's commonality has been exaggerated by these new-assyrians on Wikipedia Chris Elia (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)— Chris Elia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support I think we should change it as soon as posible!

sorry that was me i forgot to login Iphoneonderdeel (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 2A02:A03F:2AA6:C300:68A3:7CEB:32B3:D393 (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)— 2A02:A03F:2AA6:C300:68A3:7CEB:32B3:D393 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• we need the single purpose meat puppet accounts to give an explanation or sources this is not just a vote--Moxy (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support History attests Syriac means Aramean. as Arabs we know of our books that Syriac means Aramean User:Caliph Ibrahim (User talk:Caliph Ibrahim) 16:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Caliph el Muslemin 16:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Caliph el Muslemin 16:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)— Caliph Ibrahim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support I can't believe how the Assyrian movement has made this possible in just 50 years since the diaspora.. We are all Arameans and have nothing to do with the old Assyrians from the bible. Check all the academic sources like the work of Prof. S. Brock. 77.160.223.204 (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support We are in a time where we must all unite as one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeFlies (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC) — MikeFlies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sources

Support: use of Syriac/Syrian(Suryoye) Sr 76 (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

References

@Suryoyo124: this is bogus. They are stacking the votes against the move. I just looked at the version history and contribution log for all the usernames on the page. to see the meaning of the tags "has made few or no other edits outside this topic.". @Future Perfect at Sunrise: what does this mean? does their vote not count? and why did you block- the user @CaliphIbrahim? Sr 76 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

First all need to understand that this is not a vote....if you have no rational and sources for a position....then there is no point in commenting as the so called vote has no meaning behind it. As for Future's comments he is referring to the fact the editors are here out of the blue (its a very odd thing that theses editors are even here). Looks like meatpuppets or some outside canvasing. An editors reputation does have some weight here. All that said good job with the sources.....we will have to let others look at them a evaluate there merit. I have lots to read over myself...lots of books I have never heard of listed. -- Moxy (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This may have something to do with it, Wikipedia and the continuation of Western Spiritual Colonial practices Mugsalot (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mugsalot may have hit on something. I remember an Assyrian visiting an Aramean facebook page a few months and taunting people about not having a Wikipedia page.Sr 76 (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

And BTW if people have reacted to this then good on them Sr 76 (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy we have administrators in this section that called it votes/voting. If what you are you suggesting is correct then the votes of "Oppose" without any sources or people that have just incorrectly referred to WP:COMMONNAME to disguise their political bias, should all be discounted also. To be honest some of the people here have looked at this in a manner that contradicts the WP:COMMONNAME. Since WP:COMMONNAME refers to English, not English in the USA. Where people migrated to in diaspora played a big part in that perspective. And at least 2 of the 4 sources that you used are indicators of that. By referring to the "claims" of the Assyrians.Sr 76 (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy should @shmayos vote (or what ever it is) count, since we are dealing with user's reputations? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FShmayo&type=revision&diff=669713805&oldid=669529616 Sr 76 (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

pls see WP:WIKINOTVOTE .....pointing to policy like WP:COMMONNAME is good as long as a good argument is made with it. Its not vote ....its about the best arguments put forth

Since Wikipedia refers to itself as "Wikipedia the free Encyclopedia", the choice is obvious as to what the best argument is. Wikipedia is making a mockery of the word Encyclopedia, since the page is only as good as it's sources, and they don't match the appellation used on the page. People cant keep a consistent understanding of a subject matter when cross referenced against other books. Even a majority books detailed in the page's further reading. And most of the page is made up of content that refers to subject matters older than 100 years, where for the most part the name Assyrian was not applicable in its current context. Syriac is clearly the best choice.

Dictionary References to Syriac/Syrian:

Dictionary References to Aramean is Syriac:

Dictionary References to Assyrian (A completely different word, Othoroyo and Shuroye):

References

and lets not forget this also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Bilingual_Dictionary_Definitions_of_the_words_Syriac_and_Assyrian Sr 76 (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation and Common name The current article title Assyrian people, does not conform to WP:DISAMBIG. From the sources below there is a clear distinction between the modern-Assyrians and the acient-Assyrians, the current article's title and content do not account for this (because it is just an Assyrian political POV). This has resulted in Users even in this section of the talk page offering google search results that don't distinguish between ancient and modern people. So in accordance to the Determining a primary topic within WP:DISAMBIG, the name Assyrian is less suitable that Syriac.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sr 76 (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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

What are you on about @Future Perfect at Sunrise:?

Then explain what this is, if its not examples of WP:COMMONNAME then what is it?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Sources

The explanation of the origins of the name Assyrian had nothing WP:COMMONNAME but was there for WP:DISAMBIG.

WP:DISAMBIG issue of the page between ancient Assyrians and modern needs to be ignored. Why? Wikipedia's article naming policy based just on common names??????

Should I wait until hell freezes over before you give an answer? Because all you seem to do is block people and then use terms like "Single purpose accounts", why do you think people join Wikipedia as editors?

You are the one that deleted the Syriac People page in the first place, shown me your sources? Sr 76 (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf. "The main proponent (Sr 76) has brought forward numerous citations, but they all appear to be geared towards debating the tired old ideological issue of the factual correctness of Assyrian "continuity", rather than present-day naming practices." I disagree with you on that nonsense claim. Sr. 76 has provided academic sources in English about the common appellation regarding the Christian period of Syriac Christians (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans,...), which is Syriacs or Syriac people. Fut.Perf. show sources that the appellation "Assyrians" is the common appellation even for the Christian period in "present-day naming practices" in English. Everything else would be falsification and POV editing! He gave sources about the usage of the appellation Suryoye/Suraye or Syriacs for both Assyrians and Arameans, which forms the common appellation for all of them and none of them can reject this appellation. Moreover, he provided reliable sources about the disputed appellation Assyrians for Syriac Christians, and which problems occur by using this appellation for people like Ephrem the Syrian. BTW why didn't you answer Sr. 76's question especially because of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Disambiguation rule? Even if you want to keep the "Assyrian" appellation you would still need to make a distinction between ancient and modern Assyrians then!--Suryoyo124 (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I took the time to present you with the references that were asked of me, you can at least show some level of courtesy and respond with an explanation.Sr 76 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I gave you all the explanation there is to give, in he closure note. If you don't like the closure, you are of course free to ask for a review; the standard page for that is WP:MR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: That is not what we asked for, you explanation in the closure notes avoided the key-points of Move request. Sr 76 (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

From a strictly academic perspective, which i assume is the POV to which Wikipedia is intended to prescribe, the collective group of Neo-Aramaic speaking people should be referenced by the common feature which is the language. In English this language is referred to as Neo-Aramaic, in Neo-Aramaic this language is referred to as Surath. The plural form of Surath speaking people is Suraya, hence this is, in fact, the correct name of this group of people. There should be no debate about that. Within this group, there are individual groups. Only one of these groups is referenced in this article which clearly displays a bias for that group. To my knowledge, this is not for which Wikipedia was intended. Please change this name or create other pages to equally represent those other groups. Thank you and peace be with you all. Rapidsunset (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Those involved in the talk should have been notified or a posting on this page would have been proper edicate.--Moxy (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Change the title!

Because of this page the Arameans(Syriacs) and Chaldeans don't have a page. So at least this title should be changed to Assyrian/Aramean/Chaldean people?!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.153.68 (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2015

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. No evidence that name is used in reliable sources and, even if it were, we try to avoid it per WP:SLASH. Jenks24 (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Assyrian people → Assyrian/Aramean/Chaldean people – Article doesn't only talk about Assyrian people, but also Aramean and Chaldean. (This was requested by a Dutch user who's English isn't that good through OTRS.) This is me (mbch331) (Questions/Remarks/Complaints etc.) 08:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, this term is not being used by anyone afaik. A more sensible request would have instead suggested the term Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean that is being used officially in several countries including Iraq, US, Sweden and Australia.--Kathovo talk 14:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose WP:SLASH slashes should be avoided since they cause problems, and make associated talkpages function as WP:SUBPAGE making them work wrong. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2015

over-long text dump snipped [17] – Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC) 2601:86:300:A89C:5DD6:731:544E:DE6B (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You pasted the entire text of the article here, rather than some specific passage, which makes it difficult to assess what you actually want changed. Could you please provide some description of what your changes are? Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If it was just the change from "an" to "a" in the lede sentence, then  Done and thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead

There have been a quite few changes to the lead, and many of them making it less readable in my opinion. Especially that first sentence. I'm suggesting this version: The Assyrians are an ethnic group whose origins lie in ancient Near East instead of Assyrian people are a Christian, Semitic, ethnoreligious group indigenous to the Middle East., which looks bad with all the references too. Shmayo (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Iraqi constitution

This article contradicts what was stated in the Iraqi constitution in article 125 Iraqi constitution, chaldeans is not part of assyrians according to constitution , they are another ethnic , wikipedia should not be contrary Iraqi constitution --Muhib mansour (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sub-articles in a pretty dire need of expansion

Hello people ;-), The most important sub-articles of this article, namely Assyrians in Turkey, Assyrians in Iran, Assyrians in Iraq, and Assyrians in Syria are in quite a dire need of further expansion. Anyone willing to make some contributions to them? I'd love to myself, but I'm finding myself unable to do so as of now due to the lack of time. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Assyrian people

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

Reference named "cia":

• From People of Ethiopia: "Ethiopia". The World Factbook (2024 ed.). Central Intelligence Agency.
• From Russia: The World Factbook. "CIA". Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 26 December 2007.
• From Georgia (country): Georgia, from CIA World Factbook.
• From Turkic peoples: "Turkey". The World Factbook. Retrieved 21 December 2014. "Population: 81,619,392 (July 2014 est.)" "Ethnic groups: Turkish 70–75%, Kurdish 18%, other minorities 7–12% (2008 est.)" 70% of 81.6m = 57.1m, 75% of of 81.6m = 61.2m
• From Christianity in Syria: CIA World Factbook, People and Society: Syria

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Assyrian people

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

Reference named "globalsecurity":

• From Assyrian–Chaldean–Syriac diaspora: Christians in Iraq GlobalSecurity.org total estimated to be some 500,000 after the Iraq war
• From Iranian Revolution: John Pike. "Niruyeh Moghavemat Basij - Mobilisation Resistance Force". globalsecurity.org.
• From Syria: John Pike. "Syria – Overview". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 30 January 2013.
• From 2003 invasion of Iraq: John Pike. "On Point – The United States Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 7 September 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Assyrian propaganda

@@Future Perfect at Sunrise: User Meganesia is curently doing a great job in restoring Assyrian biased propaganda to the Assyrian people article again. @@Meganesia: This rule was made by Future Perfect at Sunrise for this article:"Any editor who makes edits in the article that are obviously aimed at giving preferential treatment to one of the ideological parties or terminological preferences involved (pro-"Assyrian", pro-"Aramaean" etc.) or at bolstering up historical claims associated with such preferences, will be blocked."--Suryoyo124 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting your facts from and why you are so paranoid. The article is about Assyrian people. I added content provided with sources about the history of Assyrians and where they originate from. There is no "propaganda" whatsoever. -- User:Meganesia (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about ALL Neo-Aramaic speaking people, who were forced under the umbrella term "Assyrian" on English Wikipedia, a term which isn't less disputed by academic sources! To avoid any edit wars on this article, Future Perfect at Sunrise suggested to keep this article neutral and remove all Assyrian POV editing. Arameans (I am talking about those from Mesopotamia or mostly the adherents of the Syriac-Orthodox Church) do not see themselves as the descendants of the ancient Akkadian populations and this term is rejected by them! Thanks for the confirmation that the term Assyrian is misleading to distinguish between ancient Assyrians, adherents of the Assyrian Chruch of the East who are called Assyrians, Assyrian nationalists, and Arameans who are forcible called Assyrians. Is Assyrian the only word which exists in the English language??? You have Arameans, Syriacs, Assyrians, Syrians, Chaldeans,... to make proper distinctions (See German Wikipedia).

First of all, ALL of Neo-Aramaic speaking people are ethnic Assyrians/Syriacs who originated from Northern Mesopotamia. If Arameans don't see themselves as Assyrian, then why are you against the idea of excluding them from this article? Look, if you want to add extra informative content on Arameans you can always go to its article and do so. Same with Chaldeans - You can also go to their article. It's understandable that this article would solely makes its emphasis on "Assyrian-Assyrians" (Church of the East adherents) as there is no other specific article on them. FYI, Syrians are Syrian people (Arabs) - Not sure what they have to do with this article? -- User:Meganesia (talk) 1:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assyrian_people&oldid=674332545
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assyrian_people&oldid=672143206#Syrian.2FSyriac_synonyms_with_Aramean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryoyo124 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Suryoyo124: If you would care to read the lead paragraph you would find that academic sources support that, regardless of self-identification, those who identify as "Aramean", "Chaldean", "Syriac" or Assyrian are "essentially the same indivisible people" [18]. I hope you are aware that you are more than welcome to make edits that are supported by academic sources also, granted you can find any. Mugsalot (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Revert-warring over image gallery

To all editors who have been editing the infobox gallery lately: please check the current discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, which is currently tending towards either (a) deprecating image galleries as a whole, or (b) recommending a restriction to much smaller gallery sizes. The current 35–40 images on this article is far, far too much, no matter which figures you select. Please come here for a discussion of how to limit this thing to a reasonable size and a stable consensus selection of images; if that can't be achieved, I will remove the entire gallery soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see this. However I was informed about the possible removal of the image gallery here. I agree that it's ridiculous with 30+ images. Looks like the first alternative will be the outcome, is it even worth coming up with suggestions here? Shmayo (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion:

Image gallery

Esarhaddon	Abgar V	Lucian	File:Jefrem Sirin.jpg Ephrem the Syrian	Hormuzd Rassam
Bob Miner	Andre Agassi	Terrence Malick	F. Murray Abraham	Anna Eshoo

Shmayo (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The correct section where the discussion is taking place is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_for_the_deletion_of_all_the_galleries_of_personalities_from_the_infoboxes_of_articles_about_ethnic_groups. Everybody is invited to comment thereDkfldlksdjaskd (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq wasn't Assyrian

According to

or

or

GoulGoul1 (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Naming conventions

I think there needs to be a section explaining the naming conventions... I'm so confused when Aramean and Assyrian are used simultaneously, they are different. Aram is a nation like 1000 BC and Assyria is 2500 BC... And same with Syriac and Chaldeans.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac/Aramean?!!?! --Monochrome_Monitor 04:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Info Box

Hey guys, I've noticed a few issues with this page. The first issue is the name. The majority of Assyrians refer to themselves as Suraye/Suryoye. Aturaye/Othuroye, Aramaye/Oromoye, and Kaldaye are all in lesser usage and shouldn't be included. Same with Suryaye and Suroye. The exclusion of West Assyrians is also evident by the lack of inclusion of the Surayt dialect.

Language: Shouldn't "Neo-Aramaic" be enough? Why is it broken down further? The British People page as an example doesn't include every regional dialect of theirs. Also, if Arabic is included, so should German, English, Farsi, Russian, Swedish, and Turkish. There are arguably more English-speaking Assyrians than Arabic-speaking ones.

Religion: Can't it simply say Christian and irreligious? It looks excessively cluttered.

Related ethnic groups should not include "Semitic" as it's a religious term and from outdated(and sometimes racist) historical classifications. Assyrians have nothing in common with Palestinians. No idea why they are even in there. Same with Iraqi and Syrian Arabs. If it's based on historical living situations, most Assyrians used to live around Armenians, Azeris, Kurds, Persians, and Turks, not Arabs. Include all or none.

Look at well-developed examples throughout Wikipedia if you don't see the errors in this. — Preceding Nemroyo (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC) comment added by Nemroyo (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

Someone has removed Arab from the related peoples, leaving only Mandaeans and Jews. I understand there are a fair share of Assyrians with prejudice towards Arabs, but to remove Arab from the related people is flat out bias. It is not about religion right now, its about genetics. http://www.harappadna.org/2012/02/admixture-ref3-k11-hrp0211-hrp0220/ With this study, you can see that Assyrians are closely related with yes, Ashkenazis and Mandaeans, but also Egyptians, Yemenis, Palestinians, and of course other Iraqi Arabs. http://puu.sh/nljdx/05eb6d8ea1.png This is an excerpt proving the above argument, by clicking Southwest Asian (Middle Eastern) these are the groups that have the highest percentage of Southwest Asian in them. This isn't about politics, or prejudice. This is about the facts. Please add Arab back to the related people, DNA doesn't lie.

Sorry, that was me. I did not do it for those reasons, it has nothign to do with my feelings towards Arabs. Rather, it's the fact that the word "arab" itself is very broad. In the Arab world sense it means something different from the ethnic sense. But yes Assyrians are certainly related to ethnic Arabs. (and other semites) --Monochrome_Monitor 01:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I restored Arabs. I just wish wikipedia would better acknowledge the Berbers as a distinct people from the Arabs... --Monochrome_Monitor 01:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: I know that I'm about a week late to this discussion, but I couldn't agree more with that statement. It's something that's irked me slightly for some time now. The Berbers have maintained a distinct identity for roughly 3,000 years, through various polities, whether they be the historical empires of the Phoenicians, Romans, or Arabs. This is obviously reflected in most of the academic sources. No problem there. Unfortunately, all of the people of the Maghreb tend to be lumped in as "Arabs" in reliable sources from the media, due in part to both a general ignorance of their ethnic identities, and/or the strong thrust of Pan-Arabism that tends to predominate (whether consciously or just incidentally). Very few Berbers would ever self-identify as such. I daresay almost nil. The is also the case for other ethnic groups, like the Housa. I'm not really quite sure what the solution would be, sans implementing an overriding self-identification policy that would likely be difficult to detangle per the sources, and even more difficult to enforce as a result. I'd be curious to hear what other editors think. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wameed98 (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC) \

Appears to have been done by Monochrome Monitor. Please reopen, or create a new, request if this wasn't everything. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2016

There is no ethnic relation between Armenians and Assyrians other than that some Armenians lived nearby Assyrians in Syria. I would like to delete Armenians from the ""ethnic relation Box"

Problem now (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Hi @Problem now:, Armenians are referred a number of times in the article. I see no need for them to be removed and I am therefore rejecting this request. st170e^talk 13:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The artical itself states clearly: Culturally, ethnically and linguistically distinct from, although both quite influencing on and influenced by, their neighbours in the Middle East — the Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Turks, Jews and Armenians.

A 2008 study on the genetics of "old ethnic groups in Mesopotamia," including 340 subjects from seven ethnic communities ("Assyrian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Armenian, Turkmen, the Arab peoples in Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait") found that Assyrians were homogeneous with respect to all other ethnic groups sampled in the study, regardless of religious affiliation.[140]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Problem now (talk • contribs) 17:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC) 

Blanket term

Why is there not stated even once that "Assyrians" is a blanket term for Syriac Christians in the Middle East? Are Assyrian Christians, Chaldean Catholics and Syriac Orthodox Christians really to be forcibly grouped under one ethnic name, despite being religiously (and anthropologically) distinct? If we would want a neutral title (or main term), Syriac Christians would be more appropriate. "also known as Chaldeans, Syriacs and Arameans" in the intro is very confusing. There are countless works on the identities of Syriac Christians, btw.--Zoupan 23:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

When writing the intro I didn't state that Assyrian is a blanket term because in all the sources used in that intro, not one states that. Not to mention Wikipedia doesn't determine what's right, wrong or neutral, it merely provides facts, and in this case, however distinct you consider Assyrians, Syriacs and Chaldeans to be, the common name is Assyrian and thus that is the name Wikipedia shall use. I fail to see how that is confusing, it is explained clearly under identities that Assyrians "employ different terms for self-identification based on conflicting beliefs in the origin and identity of their respective communities".

My impression from the sources provided is that Chaldeans, Syriacs, Arameans, whatever you want to call them, are Assyrian. Mugsalot (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Assyrian people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://parshan.co.il/index2.php?id=11204&lang=HEB%5D
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110928232815/http://www.indict.org.uk/crimedetails.php?crime=Anfal to http://www.indict.org.uk/crimedetails.php?crime=Anfal
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111119121049/http://aua.net/News/releases/2006/NewYear2006.pdf to http://aua.net/News/releases/2006/NewYear2006.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080723113527/http://www.assyrianfoundation.org/genetics.htm to http://www.assyrianfoundation.org/genetics.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071116064544/http://www.visarkiv.se:80/mmm/media/assyrien/cyber-e.htm to http://www.visarkiv.se/mmm/media/assyrien/cyber-e.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927043107/http://www.visarkiv.se/mmm/media/assyrien/religi-e.htm to http://www.visarkiv.se/mmm/media/assyrien/religi-e.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071103114444/http://www.christiansofiraq.com:80/assyriancostumoc96.html to http://www.christiansofiraq.com/assyriancostumoc96.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Western neo Aramaic

The eastern branch of Aramaic is spoken by the Assyrians western is spoken by the Arameans in maloulq jubb aydin and bakkah the last two are completly muslim Those are the real Arameans and dot have any relation with the syriac people i would like to have permission to correct this as there are no assyrians who speak western Aramaic it is only spoken by the descendants of the people from Aram Damascus Here are my sources 1. http://www.syriaonline.sy/?f=Details&catid=12&pageid=22083 2. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/syria-country-information/geography/ 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians#Language 4. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/14/is-the-islamic-state-exterminating-the-language-of-jesus/ --Ayatollah khamenei (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Donabed & Mako, Aljeloo and Shoup all state Arameans are Assyrian; their sources are provided in the intro of the Assyrian people article. Only Heritage for Peace state that the speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic are Aramean; the Wikipedia article you linked to has no references to support that argument and thus I removed it. The other sources do not support your claims. The Syrian Radio & TV article does not even mention Western Neo-Aramaic nor does it assert that Arameans are distinct to Assyrians. The Foreign Policy article does not state Western Neo-Aramaic is spoken exclusively by Arameans nor does it state Arameans are distinct to Assyrians.

Based on the works of Donabed & Mako, Aljeloo and Shoup, one can infer Assyrians speak Western Neo-Aramaic. Mugsalot (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It is never proven that all people who claim that they are Arameans are acctualy Assyrian you just can't prove it your sources are not reliable my sources proves that normall people with brains know that the people around Damascus who speak western Aramaic are Arameans and that the people around the city Qamishli are Syriacs (Assyrians) your sources are not reliable you just can't claim that Those people are Assyrians prove it with dna tests becouse it is never proved that western Aramaic speakers are Assyrians your sources are not reliable it is not something to trust --Ayatollah khamenei (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my previous reply, it is proven that people who claim to be Aramean are Assyrian by the sources I provided and if you have reason to believe they are not reliable I am more than open to know why and I'll remove the sources if I agree with you. Also, I showed that, aside from Heritage for Peace, your sources don't prove that the speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic are Aramean. Mugsalot (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Wich sources gave those to me so i could inspect them thank you here i have Some more sources you never proofed that Those are Assyrians please give me all your sources so i can check them maybe you ate right and are Those people also Assyrians --Ayatollah khamenei (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

http://sana.sy/en/?p=75469

http://english.ankawa.com/?p=9824

http://www.taigs.com/Syria/Maaloula/The%20Story%20Of%20Maaloula..pdf

http://www.islamictourism.com/PDFs/Issue%2025/English/36-38%20Maaloula%20Syria%20(4%20ps).pdf

https://www.betterplace.org/en/organisations/16215-hilfe-fur-das-aramaerdorf-maaloula

http://friendsofmaaloula.de

https://www.agencevu.com/exhibitions/index.php?id_cat=256

http://www.assyrianvoice.net/forum/index.php?topic=44589.0

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2016

The term "Syriacs" in the first sentence should be linked to Syriac Christianity rather than Syriac Orthodox Christians (Middle East), as it covers general topic.

120.168.0.228 (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

An own page for the Arameans/Syriacs and the Chaldeans

Hey dear wikipedia admins.

Isn't it better to make an own page for the Syriac-Aramean people and for the Chaldean people? Because: The 3 folks don't see themself as 1, and both have another culture and history for example the Syriac-Arameans dont celebrate Akitu, but the Assyrians do, the Syro-Arameans also have other folk clothes and more!

And the page is mainly going about the Assyrians and not about the 2 other nations. <

--GabrielOromoy (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

They have an own page this one is for Assyrians and the page of the Arameans. Chaldeans dont have one --Ayatollah khamenei (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Chaldeans have the Chaldean Christians article as Chaldeans are a denominational group, not a separate nation, as proved by the sources in the article. Mugsalot (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Intro

Confusion as to the nature of sources is the obvious cause of the most recent edit war and for those confused I will gladly explain. There are 5 sources provided to support the statement that Assyrians are also known as Chaldeans. Those 5 sources being Shoup, Aljeloo, Nisan, UNPO and Danver.

• Shoup does not mention the term Chaldo-Assyrian and thus he is not a source that can be used to support the statement that Assyrians are also known as Chaldo-Assyrians
• Aljeloo does not mention the term Chaldo-Assyrian and thus he is not a source that can be used to support the statement that Assyrians are also known as Chaldo-Assyrians
• Nisan does not mention the term Chaldo-Assyrian and thus he is not a source that can be used to support the statement that Assyrians are also known as Chaldo-Assyrians
• UNPO does not mention the term Chaldo-Assyrian and thus it is not a source that can be used to support the statement that Assyrians are also known as Chaldo-Assyrians
• Danver states that Assyrians are "also referred to as Chaldeans", not Chaldo-Assyrian, and thus it is not a source that can be used to support the statement that Assyrians are also known as Chaldo-Assyrians

I do not contest that Chaldo-Assyrian is a term used to refer to Chaldean Christians. I do contest, however, that the sources provided to show that Assyrians are also known as Chaldeans are used to show that Assyrians are also known as Chaldo-Assyrian. This edit war demonstrates a lack of a basic understanding of sources and must end. Furthermore, the identity section states that Assyrians also self-identify by the terms Chaldean, Syriac and Aramean. Both terms Chaldean and Syriac are present in the intro and no reason has been given for Aramean to not be mentioned in the intro also. Mugsalot (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Related Groups

Time and time again I've mentioned how it isn't professional to act like Arabs aren't a related ethnicity just because of the obvious bias against Arabs held by many Assyrians. It is ridiculous and immature that editors believe Mizrahi Jews and Maronites are related to us and Arabs somehow aren't. Every time I've made notice of this, someone puts Arabs back on only for someone to remove it again. I am Assyrian, and I assure you I know what I am talking about. http://www.harappadna.org/2012/02/admixture-ref3-k11-hrp0211-hrp0220/ Don't be delusional, see for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D132:2140:A0AB:308:66D9:BDC5 (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assyrian people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012054550/http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/Flags/assyria.html to http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/Flags/assyria.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Assyrian people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019062353/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USCIS,,IRQ,,3f520de14,0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USCIS,,IRQ,,3f520de14,0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502081740/http://assyrianconference.com:80/ashur/002.htm to http://www.assyrianconference.com/ashur/002.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

Replace the word 'anarchy' with 'chaos' in this sentence: "Since the 2003 Iraq War social unrest and anarchy have resulted in the unprovoked persecution of Assyrians in Iraq, mostly by Islamic extremists, (both Shia and Sunni), and to some degree by Kurdish nationalists."

Stoyson (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done - seems reasonable to me - Arjayay (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Not persecution

User:Hijiri88 here. Still trying to figure out how to log in on my iPad. Apparently I am trying to hijack my own account from the same device I have been using to edit logged in since last February. It's not my mobile (semi-dynamic) IP either; yesterday I had the same problem editing at home. It's only this device, which is the only one I can use outside,and even at home is more convenient than my computer.

Anyway... During the eras of Mongol rule under Genghis Khan and Timur, there was indiscriminate slaughter of tens of thousands of Assyrians and destruction of the Assyrian population of northwestern Iran and central and northern Iran is clearly out of place under the current heading. If it was "indiscriminate" (and I don't doubt that it was), that is the opposite of "persecution" of Assyrian Christians as discussed in the rest of the subsection.

I would (re)move it myself, but see the explanation above for why I am logged out.

182.251.140.189 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Gallery, again

I'm going to revert this [19] re-addition of the old "gallery" of people in the infobox. Please be reminded of the RfC back in late 2015 that led to an overall deprecation of such galleries, now mentioned in the WP:MOS under WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2017

In the section: Pre-Christian history the second paragraph begins: The history of Assyria begins with the formation of the city of Ashur

I believe that the link should be to the page "Assur", though the link text seems correct. Wanderer792 (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this has been declined. Can someone else please try following the current link and confirm that it doesn't make sense as it stands? The text is about a city, and links to a page about a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderer792 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks for pointing it out and sorry it wasn't acted on immediately. Seems pretty obvious to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated. No worries. Wanderer792 (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Article title

Consistent with a mass renaming of ethnicity articles, maybe a couple of years ago, in connection with a consensus to use the plural where feasible, would it make sense to move this article to Assyrians, rather than having that article redirect to the disambiguation page Assyrian as it does now? The associated guideline is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Ethnic groups. None of the articles listed at the disambiguation page, except this one, refer to anything that's plural in nature so I don't think there's any pressing need to maintain Assyrians as a redirect to that page. Largoplazo (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: FuturePerfect has made a mess of this page. He only responds to edit wars, so he can block people. Its a joke.

Sr 76 (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Two editors, User:Nemroyo and User:Meganesia, have been in a slow edit-war over several months over the transliterations used for the ethnic names Suraye etc. [20][21]. To both editors: this is unacceptable and will not be tolerated further. You both need to come to this talkpage, now, before any other edits, and finally start doing what you ought to have done months ago: discuss and explain your edits, with reliable sources. And don't start saying things like "I know this is the appropriate transcription because that name is pronounced in such-and-such way". Cite reliable reference works and grammars of this language. Nothing less than that will be acceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

He is actually right about the transliteration of E in Suraye/Aturaye, that it doesn't have a diacritic. I stand corrected (I guess I should've further research the E sound). You can see that I did not "edit war" his last edit on E. However, there is a diacritic for A and U, because they feature a long vowel sound. Perhaps I misconstrued the the sounds. ~Meganesia 05:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where to find sources for that. Assyrian is a really obscure language and seldom has an ample amount of library books on it and its script. But I assure you, the 'A' in Atur is always a broad A (or an "ah") sound. And the "U" is an "oo" sound. Henceforth, their respective diacritics would be used. Furthermore, if the sources matter a lot why don't you, for consistency's sake, remove the related ethnic groups down there as they don't have their respective sources? ~ Meganesia 08:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If you don't know where to find sources on such matters, don't edit them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"Related groups" entry

Seeing that the long-term slow edit warring has also been about the "related groups" entry in the infobox, and seeing the total absense of any constructive dialogue over this for so many months, I'm taking the emergency step of completely removing that field from the box, for the time being. Anybody who reinserts anything at all in that field without first proposing it and obtaining an active consensus about it here on talk, and citing clear and unambiguous sources (i.e. relevant reliable sources that actually say: "group X are among the most closely related with group Y"), will be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You should revert the other user for continuously adding "Armenian". Whilst Assyrians and Armenians have a similar history regarding Orthodoxy, that doesn't mean they are related ethnically. Armenians are from the Caucasus, near Eastern Europe even. Assyrians are from the Levant. Now sure, they are a bit close and some have intermingled, but not close enough to warrant a credit. I'll leave the related ethnicity box with Mizrahis and Maronites, as they're both Semitic-speaking peoples from the Levant. Even Mandeans aren't that similar to Assyrians considering their heavy Arab admixture, but I'm fine if they're left. It's up to you. But I strongly recommend you removing "Armenian", as there is no genuine source supporting such bold claim. ~ Meganesia 08:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Your response only shows the problem about this infobox field in general: there are simply too many competing meanings of the word "related" for this to be useful. "Related" can mean any combination of: sharing similar genetic profiles; sharing some common history; speaking similar languages; speaking languages of common descent; sharing some common cultural traits; feeling ideological/political affinity with each other, and so on. I don't want you and other users endlessly exchanging your personal opinions here, of the kind: "I think 'related' means X, and on those criterion A and B are related" – "No, for being 'related', criterion Y is what counts, and on that criterion A and C are closer". What we'd need is a set of reliable sources establishing a standard, consensus concept of: "Ethnic groups can be graded as 'related' according to criteria X, Y and Z, and on these criteria A is among the most closely related groups to B". You will find that there are no such sources, because scholarship simply doesn't discuss ethnicities and their relationships in such terms. Come back here if and when you found such sources to prove me wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's good that you removed the related ethnicity infobox contents from the article. I'll try to find sources for each of the related ethnic groups first before I introduce them into the box. It may be an arduous task, because Assyrian sources are very obscure and usually not that reliable. But I will try my best and see what I can up come with. ~ Meganesia 11:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Assyrian and Armenian history goes significantly beyond "shared Orthodoxy", which includes, but is not limited to: Assyrian and Armenian royalty intermarriage, that the term "Armenia" comes from Assyrian (there is a source provided on the page), that Armenians and Assyrians are genetically one cluster of people and diverged from a single population (speaker is a geneticist; skip to 1:10:55), that Armenians and Assyrians inhabited the same geographical area, both suffered under the Armenian/Assyrian Genocide/Seyfo, etc. I don't really think I need to provide sources for the latter two, since it's a simple Google search and Wikipedia already has more sources for it. In conclusion, the "related peoples" box should be brought back, and anyone who feels compelled to remove Armenians should state why and refute anything I've shared here. @Future Perfect at Sunrise: Nemroyo (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Assyrian people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528234208/http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33109 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33109
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G2000_B04003&-CONTEXT=dt&-redoLog=true&-currentselections=ACS_2007_1YR_G2000_B04001&-geo_id=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en%7C%7D%7D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2CUSCIS%2C%2CIRQ%2C%2C3f520de14%2C0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150305015143/http://sokad.de/index.php/erzdioezese to http://www.sokad.de/index.php/erzdioezese
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130808095832/http://spectator.org/archives/2007/07/02/thrown-to-the-lions to http://spectator.org/archives/2007/07/02/thrown-to-the-lions
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/sy%7Darama.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025123007/http://syrianorthodoxchurch.org/news/2011/02/10/three-day-fast-of-nineveh/ to http://syrianorthodoxchurch.org/news/2011/02/10/three-day-fast-of-nineveh/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.assyrianfoundation.org/genetics.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.at/ishe/conferences/past%20conferences/ghent.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

The page is semi-protected and I can't fix the disruption[22] by user @Meganesia:. His rewordings do not reflect the source accurately. There is 0 information about Iraqi Jews and Mandaeans in the sources. Please back to old revision. 162.251.164.10 (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Why should I establish a consensus? The problem here is not a content dispute, but misrepresentation of the source(s). 162.251.164.10 (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I checked and you appear to be right, the sentence as modified by Meganesia wasn't reflecting the sources cited. I am not particularly convinced the previous version was much better though, and the same goes for the rest of the paragraph, so I removed those sentences completely. Thanks for flagging up the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding Assyrian flag to the infobox

Would it be a good idea to add the Assyrian flag to the infobox? I looked at it, and it is the official flag of Assyrian political parties, the ethnic group, and the diaspora. However, it may be getting too political, and could be a major change. If a senior editor approves of doing this, could they add the flag to the infobox? C1MM (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"Spitting on anyone or their belongings is seen as a grave insult"...

How many cultures are there where spitting on someone is *not* a grave insult? Ahyangyi (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring

To all four editors who have recently been making reverts and other potentially contentious edits on this page: You need to come here and discuss. Every edit that has the potential of being contentious needs to be discussed here first. That means: explain what you're going to do, then wait for possible objections, answer them, only then make your edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User Florian Blaschke is reverting anything I adjust without reason other than "POV". If he does not seek to discuss with me, I'm going to have to report him for doing this consistently. Nemroyo (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

People, I have held off blocking all of you for now, because I felt there might be a chance yet for you to start discussing constructively, but I must observe, you have all been breaking these rules, with every single edit of yours, all the time. Is it really that difficult to understand? Explain first, revert later. "Explain" means: cite sources. "Later" means: several hours after you've explained yourself, to give others time to respond. This goes for every potentially contentious edit (excepting, of course, reverts of plain and obvious vandalism, uncontentious grammar fixes and the like). And it goes for everybody. It doesn't matter whether you think you explained yourself sufficiently the last time round; it doesn't matter whether your opponent has previously broken the rule; if you are planning to revert anything, you come here first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Languages

A few recent edits have removed, miscategorized and renamed the languages spoken by Assyrians historically and currently. I would argue that the language section should mention both the currently and the historically spoken languages by Assyrians. Apart from the Neo-Aramaic languages, the most currently spoken language in the traditional Assyrian homeland according to the population statistics on this page would be Arabic, since there right now are (by the lowest estimates) about 400,000 Assyrians in Syria and Iraq combined, for the majority of whom use Arabic daily. There is also a large Assyrian population in Lebanon, where Arabic is the main language. Turkish and Persian could also be said to be currently spoken by Assyrians in the Assyrian homeland, but in far lower numbers (~35,000 combined by the lowest estimate). The main languages in the modern diaspora would be English, Swedish and German. Historically Assyrians lived side by side with Turkish, Armenian, Kurdish and Persian speaking people in modern day Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran, and often spoke one of these languages which has given rise to many loanwords in the modern Neo-Aramaic languages. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This has once again been changed, no reason or source has been given that is adequate, only that "Assyrians are not learning Arabic. It's as simple as that." and that "The Assyrian population is declining in Arabic-speaking countries, learning of Arabic is by default too, hence falling into the "historic" category...". Even if a population is declining is does not mean that it isn't still substantial. I refer again to the explanation above why Arabic should be removed from currently spoken languages. This is a source detailing the current (as of 2017) estimates of the Assyrian population of Syria and Iraq: http://www.aina.org/reports/utrmcfsi.pdf. By the lowest estimates 75,000 Assyrians currently inhabit the Al-Jazira Province in Syria (of a total of 800,000 Christians in Syria by the lowest estimate) and at least 200,000 Assyrians are living in Iraq by the lowest estimates. The vast majority of these are bilingual, speaking and learning Arabic as well as their native Neo-Aramaic languages. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to explain this further other than the Assyrian population is decreasing in Arabic-speaking countries, thus Assyrians are NO LONGER learning Arabic due to the constant emigration, but ARE currently learning English, French, German, Dutch, etc. putting the former in the "historical" group rather than the "current" one. Assyrians can speak Armenian, Azeri, Georgian, Russian, and the likes too, but that is just like any other minority group and is overall insignificant. The Assyrian populations in Iraq and Syria are lower than what's listed because of ISIS, so the levels are getting closer to the Iran/Turkish ones now. To top it off, most live in areas populated by Kurds, not Arabs, so Arabic-speakers are declining just like Persian ones. I will include some sources, even though it is quiet obvious what's happening. Nemroyo (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

After reading your update, it still doesn't change where it fits. Most Assyrians in Iraq live among Kurds, not Arabs. They are also still fleeing the country (which I cited in the article now). In Syria, the area is not predominately Arab, and Arabic, Assyrian, and Kurdish are all coofficial (I will add citations for this too). This all means the population of Arabic-learning Assyrians are decreasing while English, French, Dutch, and Swedish are increasing. Please stop mass reverting anything I add, because it's getting rather irritating. Especially when I'm fixing verbiage and grammar so the page reads better. Nemroyo (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That source does not go into any population statistics or counter my argument. If 400,000+ Assyrians are currently residing in Syria and Iraq and are Arabic speaking, (not counting the diaspora Assyrians that speak Arabic and the ones in Lebanon, Jordan and other countries) then it is a currently spoken language, even if Assyrians are emigrating to the West. By the logic that Assyrians are leaving the Middle East therefore Arabic is a historic language, then the Neo-Aramaic languages should be labeled historic as well as they are currently struggling to survive in the diaspora with young people learning Western languages. Arabic is used as a working language in both Iraqi Kurdistan and DFNS controlled Northern Syria. French and Spanish are not substantially spoken by Assyrians currently as daily spoken languages, the largest western languages are English, Swedish and German, yet those has been added as well as Turkish even though Assyrians in Turkey number no more than about 30,000 currently (as a midway population figure between 15,000 and 65,000). If you add sources simply for the sake of adding sources that does not strengthen your argument. If you found sources that stated that less than 50,000 Assyrians currently live in Arabic speaking countries or that less than 50,000 Assyrians in Arabic speaking countries and the diaspora combined currently do not speak Arabic, then that would be a sufficient source, though as I have argued I seriously doubt that a credible source would state something like that. The sources you've recently added on the page (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-s-only-assyrian-school-is-giving-refugees-a-fresh-start and http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/12/06/the-inside-story-of-how-226-assyrian-christians-were-freed-from-isis/) only states that Assyrians in a community in Australia are learning English and Neo-Aramaic and that Assyrians were persecuted and fled from the Khabour River Valley, and they do not constitute a sufficient source for your argument. I am not interested in a editing war but I will continue to argue against and revert unconstructive changes if you continue to make them. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There are no actual figures for the Assyrian populations in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, nor Jordan, so you expecting me to find something that isn't just an estimate is unrealistic and simply not going to happen. The populations in all of those except Lebanon are decreasing. And Lebanon is a trilingual country anyway (Arabic, English, French), with Arabic declining there as well (which isn't important to this page).

Assyrian/Syriac/Aramaic is the native language, and is clearly classed differently as a result. Assyrians from Iran, Turkey, Kurdish-speaking areas may still speak those languages after migrating, but it doesn't get passed down to their children in the diaspora, so your point on Arabic is irrelevant and the articles indicate they are not learning it in Australia, meaning the population of Arabic-speaking Assyrians is declining. The whole premise of the section is that Assyrians learn their own language and the society they're living in. Assyrians are fleeing Arabic-speaking societies and not retaining Arabic in diaspora. I already explained (and cited) why Turkish is categorized in the "current" compared to Arabic or Persian, which is the result of Assyrians either moving back there from diaspora or fleeing from Syria to Turkey, so a population increase and subsequently a language knowledge increase in Turkish.

And my sources are relevant. I've already compromised with you several times, considering you kept my source for Chaldean Catholic Assyrians in Iran not being considered Chaldean, while those in Iraq/Syria are for different reasons while removing what I wrote. And your unnecessary addition of "Surayt" with "Turoyo" after replacing "Suryoyo" even though they're all synonymous for god knows what reason. Nemroyo (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The language section should at least mention the main (~100,000+ speakers) languages spoken or learned by Assyrians, I provided a source with recent (2017) population estimates of Assyrians in Syria and Iraq and my arguments concerning the present population there has not been countered, sources cannot be of specific cases but a statement such as "Assyrians are no longer learning Arabic" needs a general reliable source, which I doubt can be found because all the data I've read speaks against such a claim. Surayt and Turoyo are standard names by academic criteria for Tur Abdin Central Neo-Aramaic, Suryoyo is not. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You made another change without an agreement and less than 24 hours timespan of me responding last. I'm reverting as you're using my links which specifically say they're learning English and Aramaic, not Arabic. More Assyrians speak English than Arabic and there is no such thing as a "Western" language.

Then pick Turoyo or Surayt. They both don't need to be there. Nemroyo (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Once again, the sources that were provided does not support such a broad claim, they only point towards specific cases of Assyrians migrating, not of Assyrians not learning Arabic. I waited several hours before making changes that were well sourced after posting on the talk page per the rules stated here by the administrator. The reverts you've made are unilateral, unsupported by your arguments or any sources and break the rules of editing for this page. If such unilateral reverts continue I will report them as edit warring. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Roman Rule

Purely a point RE historical accuracy here. Roman rule in Assyria (Assyria Provincia) actually lasted only 3 or 4 years under Trajan, I think between 114-117 AD. So the dates given here are way out, it was a few years interrupting Parthian rule and the semi independent Neo-Assyrian kingdoms in the area. Roman Syria (The Levant) was a lot longer, but even here, it was bisected and interrupted by other polities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.36.164 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content and edit warrings by Nemroyo

This user have removed a sourced content[23] yesterday. The study is from 2011 and is not "outdated". It is just an example of "i just don't like it"-type deletions. The same user is also keep edit-warring on "related ethic group" part in the infobox. The related ethnic groups part refers to ethnolinguistically related groups and Armenians, an ethnic group with totally different ethogenesis, language and culture, are irrelevant here. The user also keep removing anything regarding Iraqi Arabs without a discernable reason. Such long-term disruptive-tendentious edits and slow-burning edit wars must come to an end. 64.180.146.249 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have just read the warnings and rules at the top of the page (written by the admin, Future Perfect at Sunrise). Then I must say that, user Nemroyo broke the rules (many times). 64.180.146.249 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

He removed content and made a lot of unconstructive edits to the language and 'Assyrian subgroups' sections as well that I reverted. There seems to be biased motivations in removing references to religious denominations, ethnic identities and proper names of Neo-Aramaic languages on his part. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You have reverted the entire page several times and been told to stop by Panspermia prior to me. You continued to do so, reinstating incorrect information such as Assyrians learning Armenian, adding in only Chaldeans speak the Chaldean Neo-Aramaic dialect when they don't, and putting in an Arabic designations for us (i.e. Suryani). As far as the "divisions" part, I have to told you that it's in the intro paragraph and "Identity and subdivisions" sections already and linked throughout the page. People do not need to know five times who belongs to which church (which wasn't the only problem with your reverts, but you brought it up here). Nemroyo (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that the "Self-designation" section already describes the modern identities among Assyrians and Syriacs fairly well, so the reduction in the "Assyrian subgroups" to remove historical religious and lingustic divisions was problematic and made these sections very similar. You're right, Chaldean-Neo Aramaic speakers do not overlap with either being Chaldean Catholic or identifying as Chaldean, so that should be clarified. However a claim that the characteristics of Chaldeans are products of Arabization and Baathist policies is contentious to say the least and would both need to properly sourced and worded carefully if included at all. Many Assyrians do speak Arabic since many live in Syria and Iraq, or migrated from there recently (Suroyo TV has programs in Arabic for example [Tebe Araboye]). While Kurdish and Armenian are not learned among Assyrians to the same extent anymore, it was the native language of Assyrians in Urfa and Amid (alongside Turkish) and therefore at least deserves a mention and removing them is not an improvement of the article I would argue. There is a smaller community of Assyrians that live in Armenia, and in Northern Syria which has a large Syriac-Assyrian community, Kurdish is widely spoken, especially in the context of the DFNS. I did however add clarification that these have largely been replaced by Western languages in the modern diaspora. Also the terms "Western Assyrian" and so on to describe Turoyo/Surayt is not precise and a bit contientious since these are not terms either used by scholars or by the majority of the Surayt speaking community. The official name used by the EU funded programme for revitalizing the language (http://www.surayt.com/) is Surayt, since it is both specific and historically used by the community while Turoyo remains a correct scholarly term for the time being. Suryoyo is widely used by the community but means Syriac so is a bit problematic, since Classical Syriac and Surayt are not the same. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Eastern, Western, Chaldean. This is in the section labeled "Demography" with "subgroups" and is meant as a current representative of the people. Chaldeans specifically exist as a distinct subgroup in Iraq/Syria because of Baathism. The ones in Iran are Chaldean Catholics, but do not belong to the "Chaldean" subgroup because they are not culturally like them nor call themselves "Chaldean", but are like other Urmians/Iranians, whether ACOE, Protestant, Orthodox, irreligious, etc. The original Chaldean Church was founded in Turkey in the mid 1500s, not Iraq and later dissolved, which makes this more incorrect. The churches are listed both in the intro and the designation area. They do not make sense here as East vs. West is formulated based off dialect, not church. East/West vs. Chaldean is based off Arab-influence and cultural elements rather than solely on religious denomination as per the reason I listed above.

"Nestorian" is a defunct term outside of some academia and not necessary in a CURRENT description of people, nor are all Easterners Nestorian in the first place. There are Protestants, Russian/Eastern Orthodox, irreligious, Roman Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, etc. Further, both "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic" and "Chaldean Neo-Aramaic" fall under "Northeastern Neo-Aramaic" so I don't particularly see a point in making this page longer than it needs to be by having both written there. They're also in the text box and language sections.

Most Assyrians live in diaspora and the paragraph on languages gives the impression Armenian (which is 100% not being learned), Azeri, Arabic, Turkish, Persian, etc. are being learned. They are not, and this is not debatable. The ONLY one you can argue is Turkish (and maybe Kurdish) because of the growing population of Assyrians in Turkey. I'm going to adjust this, because it's simply not correct and worded in a way that is giving an entirely false impression.

It's not necessary to have both Surayt and Turoyo there as the article it links to says both already. Change it to just "Sureyt" if you want, but both Sureyt and Suryoyo are more precise than "Turoyo". Suryoyo = Assyrian which is synonymous with Syriac. It's not different from saying Suret, Sureth, Suroyo, Suray, Suryaya, Suryo, Sura, or any of the other variations that are used in other dialects. It all means the same thing. Assyrian (or Syriac) in English. "Assyrian" "Chaldean "Turoyo" are all called a variation of "Sureyt" in Assyrian/Aramaic (or Syriac). Nemroyo (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

'Chaldeans' certainly appears to refer to a religious sect within the Assyrian people, it's pretty obvious this only came about after some Assyrians aligned with the RCE in the 18th and 19th centuries, because the name didnt exist before that. I can't find any peer reviewed study or respected academic opinion that links 'Chaldean Catholics' to the old Chaldeans of Babylonia, but if there are, they should be included, if not, that should be stated. With 'Arameans' and 'Assyrians' it often seems to be about where a person is from. Basically in Iraq, northeastern Syria, Iran and part of southeastern Turkey, 'Assyrian' or 'Chaldo-Assyrian' seem to be to the fore, in the Levant it seems to be 'Aramean' or 'Syriac-Aramean'. There are genetic studies which seem to show Assyrians and Syrians differ from one another, and likewise, the Western Aramaic is different from the Eastern Aramaic, which seems to still have some Akkadian influence in it in some ways.

Just a suggestion here, but regarding the above, might it not be that 'Assyrians' and 'Arameans' are really two different ethnic groups? Putting this possibility (or reality?) in the article might just help stop the edit wars, because it seems like Arameanists want to call Assyrians Arameans, and Assyrianists want to call Arameans Assyrians, whether they like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.36.164 (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add this tag to the main page

Thanks, 207.35.33.162 (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It is still not fixed. 207.35.33.162 (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Neo aramaic to Syriac language

I have a question, should we change the name neo aramaic to syriac and redirect it to Syriac language? I know we speak neo aramaic but its really syriac, west and east? Also saying syriac is more famous in our community and in the world than saying aramaic.....

No, we speak Aramaic. Aramaic is the real name of the language we speak. It's referring to our name in antiquity too, keep it on the Aramaic language. Syriac is just a dialect of Aramaic. Syriac563 (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: Change the name from Neo-Aramaic to Assyrian aramaic

l want and suggest to change the language that assyrians speak from neo-aramaic to assyrian aramaic, because there are many peoples of different ethnic groups that speak neo-aramaic, maybe we should change the name to assyrian aramaic because of three reasons.

Reason number one: We are assyrians who speak Aramaic.

Reason number two: According to many researchers of lingustics, the language modern assyrians speak is Akkadian influenced Aramaic. It is the ONLY language of the Neo aramaic languages that old assyrian dialect of akkadian(there were two dialects of akkadian, babylonian and assyrian) have influenced, and that is the syriac language. The syriac language which modern assyrians speak.

Reason number three: Assyrians call their language many things, aramaic, assyrian and syriac, why not just call it assyrian? or assyrian aramaic? that could contribute more unity between the different assyrians that exists. Remember, not all modern assyrians see their origins being from the ancient assyrians, there are those that see their origin as arameans and chaldeans, we are not united. If we changed the name of the language we could offer more unity in the future.

I also want to say that l am new in wikipedia so all the wrong doings l did happened because l am a beginner, l haven't learned everything yet but with practise l soon will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at this, there is a Wikipdia artticle named Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, would this name be ok for you ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

hi, yes it would, but we maybe should change the name of assyrian neo aramaic to something else.....?

We should change the name to assyrian neo aramaic, and redirect it to the syriac language?Nemrud91

No problem for me, if there is a consensus about this.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If you agree with me that we should change the name of the language then you do it. You are more respected than me and you probably know more about assyrians than me. Nemrud91