Talk:Assyrian people

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Redundancy: "Chaldean Assyrians/Nestorian Assyrians/Syriac Assyrians"

This is completely uncalled for. First of all Chaldeans is enough; the Assyrian is implied. Syriac and Assyrian are two terms essentially for the same thing though Assyrian may be disputed by some. "Nestorian" Assyrians is altogether incorrect. They are NOT Nestorian. I don't care if they were erroneously called that. When simplifying; they should be reffered to as Assyrian Orthodox or CE [Church of the East] Assyrians [as opposed to Syriac Orthodox] which does not imply Eastern or Oriental Orthodox rather as in the original Church of the East. Nestorian is derogetory. Chaldean is just as erroneous as Nestorian. Chaldean is the fault of the Catholic church and Nestorian is a misnomer from the West to divide Eastern Christians and label some as heretics. Assyrian was added to the title of Church of the East. I bet you did not know that originally the patriarch of the [Uniate] Catholics was called Patriarch of Assyria and only after some generations did it switch [along with the Church affiliations] and become reserved for the CE Assyrians. Originally the Patriarch of Babylon was the title reserved for the CE Assyrians. The majority reaffiliation with Rome wasn't complete until the 19th Century. Now even the CE may become a Uniate church like the Chaldean one and possibly reunite once again piecing together the split that began in the 16th century. Sharru Kinnu III 13:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

indeed. I do believe I see through this now. Proper English terminology is probably "Eastern Assyrians", "Western Assyrians" and "Chaldeans". What Elias is giving us is just textbook Assyrianism, which is one perspective of ethnic nationalism, which needless to say Wikipedia's voice shouldn't endorse. dab (𒁳) 14:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So, what if I am actually right, and that the modern Chaldeans, are Assyrians? I mean, it's not like the article is sourced to an academic source, corroborating this. Oh yeah, blame Elias, the evil nationalist who wants to gas the Aramaeans and the Chaldeans. As always, the best thing dab can do, is to resort to ad hominem attacks. Lame. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:00 20 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

ffs, read this: nobody disputes they are Assyrians alright? They're still not commonly called "Chaldean Assyrians". If we were disputing they are Assyrians, we'd remove them from the "Assyrian people" category, wouldn't we? dab (𒁳) 16:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly there are feuds developing within the talk pages where just for the sake of arguement Wikipedians will continously dipsute something that isnt' being dipsuted. This goes for all sides. Cease arguing over nothing and making false claims based on selective reading. Sharru Kinnu III 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a basic understanding so far as to whom the Modern Assyrians are. Syrian [Souryaya] in the Neo-Aramaic/Syriac languages [Soureth/Souryoyo] is whom all refer to themselves as in the native language of the Syriac Christian people similar to how the Germans refer to their country as Deutsche and their nation as Deutschland and in similarity to Greek opposite to Turk it may refer to their religion in correlation with the ethno-religious self-designating nature of the Near Eastern cultures. The disputes thereby lie mainly in exonyms in languages non-native to the Assyrians to which has also has revived internally the disputes. Aramaean historically has referred to the Aramaic-speaking peoples in a similar fashion to how Britons may also be called English akin to how Assyrians may be called Syriacs or even Aramaeans due to in part by their native language. Claiming descent by fulling claiming to be one of the ancients over the other is nonsensical due to the impossibility of confirming such claims either by DNA or other means. The overall concensus is that all these terms inlcuding Chaldean refer to the same people. Thru time however these different groups have somewhat evolved independantly of each other though not to the extent to be considered seperate people but rather sub-groups of the Syriac Christians that are divided by Christian denomination, dialectal differences in language, and geographical location specifically village of origin which may span several countries where the Assyrian empire and it's sister states and satelite states once stood ground. Sharru Kinnu III 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

ffs, read this: nobody disputes they are Assyrians alright? — Pseudo-Aramaeans and pseudo-Chaldeans do. They're still not commonly called "Chaldean Assyrians". — Then why did you move it to the Chaldean Christians title, because some self-proclaimed historian/professor begged for it? Oh yeah, the evil nationalist Elias' edits shouldn't be taken seriously. After all, Garzo doesn't want me to have influence here. If we were disputing they are Assyrians, we'd remove them from the "Assyrian people" category, wouldn't we? — That's probably what's going to happen too. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:30 20 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I do dispute that they are all "Assyrians", and many others with me. It is clear that there is a dispute over this name, just as there is a dispute over the name Aramaeans. The only name that is not disputed is Syrian or Syriac, which is a translation of the self-appelation Suryāye. Any other name is a violation of NPOV policy. The people have been called Syrians for centuries, in all Western languages. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide academic sources for your assertions, or none of them will be taken seriously. And please, disregard home made unprofessional websites. And I hope you by now, understand that Syrian means Assyrian. And again, there is nothing NPOV about the title. Stop causing trouble Benne. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:00 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I have provided you with many historical and academic sources. These are verifiable. Please read my last note above, and answer my questions about Strabo and Tatian using reliable sources, just as I did. And no, I don't believe Syrian means Assyrian, I think it's folk etymology. I don't say the title is NPOV, I say it's wrong to apply it to Syriacs who do not identify with the Neo-Assyrian nation. I don't deny your right to your own identity, but don't impose it on other Syriacs.

And stop calling people who don't agree with your Assyrianist agenda, trouble makers. Comment on content, not on people. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Benne, you are ONLY here to cause trouble. You have your political Aramaeanist agenda which you cannot prove the least. I have provided you with many historical and academic sources. — No you haven't. Not one single academic source. All you've done is to link to home made websites. These are verifiable. — So verify them then, by using academic sources. If the home made websites you keep linking to (which have no credibility at all) were so historically accurate, they would have been included in academic studies. They are not. Too bad, eh? Please read my last note above, and answer my questions about Strabo and Tatian using reliable sources, just as I did. — You did not use reliable sources. You used home made websites. And no, I don't believe Syrian means Assyrian, I think it's folk etymology. — Yes, you are free to believe this. But your opinion is not academic by itself. There are a handful of academic scholars who believe otherwise. Their opinion is worth 1000 times more than yours. I don't say the title is NPOV, I say it's wrong to apply it to Syriacs who do not identify with the Neo-Assyrian nation. — They don't identify as Assyrians, because of liars like you, spreading lies, indoctrinating them, and confusing them, with home made websites. I don't deny your right to your own identity, but don't impose it on other Syriacs. — Not imposing anything on anyone. There are more Syriacs who identify as Assyrian, rather than "Aramaean". Benne, seriously, stop causing trouble. This really doesn't concern you if you are not an Assyrian (or Syriac, if you like). It's none of your business. You only want to split up the Assyrian people. You are not helping the "Aramaeans" by inculcating them with lies about our history. Again, I tell you, either bring academic sources supporting your Aramaeanist revisionist claims, or knock it off. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:51 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

The website cites numerous sources, both historical as more recent ones, both Syriac and Western. And the link citing Strabo, is an online work of the Greek historian. You still have not answered my question. Also Tatian's works are found online. Prove me that he called himself an Assyrian.

Also, there is Courtois, The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, The Last Arameans. Another, less recent example, is Prof. Dietrich Hermann Hegewisch, Die Aramäer oder Syrer; ein kleiner Beitrag zur allgemeinen Weltgeschichte.

Concern the Syrian=Assyrian theory, perhaps only a handful of scholars believe otherwise. Have you provided more than a handful of scholars who support this theory?

As long as the history of the Syriac people is distorted by Assyrianist nonsense, I will continue to bring in different sources. I believe it's you who should knock it off with your nationalist crap. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 11:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All your sources are crap. Cite modern, respected scholars and academics (and preferably in English), or you don't have a case. Concern the Syrian=Assyrian theory, perhaps only a handful of scholars believe otherwise. Have you provided more than a handful of scholars who support this theory? — You really should look into this a little better: Çineköy Inscription. I've showed you the link one hundred times by now, yet you keep on ignoring it because your Aramaean glasses don't want to see it. Syria, apart from its extreme similarity with Assyria (and this is no coincidence, mind you), bears no resemblance whatsoever with Aram. And the link citing Strabo, is an online work of the Greek historian. — Yes, it's from an academic online source: [1][2] unlike Aramaeanist revisionist sites, which aren't the least academic. Never mind that one of the links is uploaded on YouTube, Richard Nelson Frye is a very respected academic scholar, and his opinion counts. Also Tatian's works are found online. — Yes, also from an academic source: [3] Prove me that he called himself an Assyrian. — This is the internet, we use online sources, but they should be academic, and preferably from scholars. Your Aramaeanist sites do not fulfil this requirement. As long as the history of the Syriac people is distorted by Assyrianist nonsense, I will continue to bring in different sources. I believe it's you who should knock it off with your nationalist crap. — Sorry, but this is not Assyrianism, it is simply citing serious academic scholars. By the way, I have to ask, why do you want to damage the Assyrian people with lies, splitting us up? Why is this so important to you? What motivates you to split us apart? What keeps you going on and on likes this, spreading lies? — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:42 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

For the self-identification Aramaeans, I have given you Sébastien de Courtois, researcher at the École pratique des hautes études, John Joseph. Sources don't need to be in English, science is not bound by the Anglophone world ...

You keep on evading the question. Check out Strabo's Geography. Parpola simply states that Tatian identified himself as an Assyrian, without providing a citation. How scholarly is that? I cite that he writes "I was born in the land of the Assyrians. Does that, or the fact that an Assyriologist says so, make him an Assyrian? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 12:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, you have now fully convinced me; Tatian was an Aramaye nationalist. All jokes aside, as for John Joseph, he is an Aramaeanist and he ignores a lot of important facts, just to make it look like we are "Aramaeans". For instance, he has stated his conspiracy theory that it was the Britons who brainwashed the Suraya/Suryoyo people with Assyrian nationalism. Well, he's full of shit. For instance:

Michael the Great in the 12th century reports on a 9th century dispute between Greek and Syriac sects, and has the Jacobites answer derogatory comments of their Greek opponents to the effect:

That even if their name is "Syrian", they are originally 'Assyrians' "and they have had many honorable kings ... Syria is in the west of Euphrates, and its inhabitants who are talking our Aramaic language, and who are so-called 'Syrians', are only a part of the 'all', while the other part which was in the east of Euphrates, going to Persia, had many kings from Assyria and Babylon and Urhay. ... Assyrians, who were called 'Syrians' by the Greeks, were also the same Assyrians, I mean 'Assyrians' from 'Assure' who built the city of Nineveh.History of Mikhael The Great Chabot Edition p. 748, 750, quoted after Addai Scher, Hestorie De La Chaldee Et De "Assyrie"

When Horatio Southgate visited the Syrian Orthodox communities of Turkey in 1843 he reported that its followers were calling themselves Suryoye Othoroye:

I began to make inquiries for the Syrians. The people informed me that there were about one hundred families of them in the town of Kharpout, and a village inhabited by them on the plain. I observed that the Armenians did not know them under the name which I used, Syriani; but called them Assouri, which struck me the more at the moment from its resemblance to our English name Assyrians, from whom they claim their origin, being sons, as they say, of Assour who 'out of the land of Shinar went forth, and build Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resin between Nineveh and Calah.Horatio Southgate, "Narrative of a Visit to the Syrian Church", 1844 p. 80

That said, John Joseph, the Aramaeanist pseudo-academic, as far as his credibility goes, is in ruins. So give me another one. science is not bound by the Anglophone world — Simo Parpola is not an Anglophone, he's from Finland. Robert Rollinger, is from the Netherlands (if I'm not mistaken). And Richard Nelson Frye is Swedish. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:42 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

numbers again

• East Syriac 170,000-300,000 (85,000 in Iraq)[4]
• Syriac Orthodox 100,000-300,000(USA: 80,000, Germany 50,000)[5]
• Syriac Catholic 100,000[6]
• Chaldean 300,000 (240,000 in Iraq)[7]

total: 670,000-1,100,000

• Middle East: 2.5 million
• Europe: 93,000, North Armerica 300,000, former SU 64,000, Australia+NZ 33,000 other 150,000

total: 3.3 million[8]

it follows that we have no idea how many there are. Anything between 0.7 and 3.3 million is possible. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, thats why a moderate estimate of 2 million sounds pretty reasonable. Chaldean 15:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt adherents.com is more reliable than CIA. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:50 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

did you even look at the CIA factbook? they have

• for Iraq[9]: "Christian or other 3%" (that's 820,000 "Christian or other")
• Syria[10]: Christian (various denominations) 10% (that's 1.9 million Christians. only a minority of these are Assyrian)
  • Ethnic groups: "Kurds, Armenians, and other 9.7%", that's 1.8 million "Kurds, Armenians, and others, including Assyrians"

very reliable, I must say. Assuming 190,000 Armenians and "0.9 to 2.8 million" Kurds in Syria, we get an upper limit of about 500,000 Assyrians in Syria, and an upper limit of 800,000 Assyrians in Iraq, but these numbers are not in the CIA factbook. If we accept this, we get an upper limit of maybe 1.5 million in the Middle East (not 2.5 million), and consequently an upper limit of 2.3 million worldwide. From all this, I estimate 1-2 million is a reasonable estimate. dab (𒁳) 16:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dab your not even taking into consideration the Iraqi refugees in Syria. 700,000, with half if not the majority of them being Christian. Look, I believe in if their is a recent census, then that should be used (As it is with the US, Canada, Australia, etc), but if one is not available, then moderate estimates should be used. Chaldean 16:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dab, how old is that adherents.com ref? You have to tak into consideration, that the war in Iraq has decimated the Assyrian population a lot; many have been killed and fled the country. We can't use sources from pre-21th century. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:16 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

did you even bother to look at the links? they give many independent estimates, each listed with its date. If you have better sources, quote them, but don't revert to "CIA" numbers that don't even exist. As for Iraqi refugees in Syria, you are right, per Refugees_of_Iraq#Christians, we should expect some 100,000 Assyrians to shift from the Iraqi to the Syrian headcount. The overall number will be unaffected by this. excess deaths due to the war are calculated at around 2.5%, and thus clearly below the level of accuracy we can aim at here. --dab (𒁳) 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense but between the ultranationalist Elias and the anti-Assyrianist Benne is moderation between two different extremes...

There is middle ground. What I stated before is that all these terms are correct however the internationally recognized name of all these people is Assyrian regardless of what Aramaeanists declare. An Aramaean is an Aramaic-speaker. Just as modern Assyrians aren't ancient Assyrians because NO ANCIENT PEOPLE EXIST TODAY! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEADS!!! WE MAY BE DESCENDED FROM THE ANCIENT ASSYRIANS OR ARAMAEANS BUT WE ARE THEIR MODERN DESCENDANTS NOT THE ANCIENTS, THEY ARE LONG GONE JUST AS THE ANCIENT GREEKS OR ANY OTHER ANCIENT RACE. WE ARE CALLED ASSYRIANS BY THE UN, AND THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT. NO COUNTRY OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZES THE TERM ARAMAEAN AS AN ETHNICITY BECAUSE IT IS SYNONYMOUS WITH THE SAME PEOPLE THAT CLAIM ALL THESE GROUPS ARE DIFFERENT AND THEY ARE ONE OR THE OTHER WHEN THERE IS NO INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE POINTING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. The British are also called English or Anglo-Saxon for Christs sakes as an example of people having multiple designations. The US uses Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs. Iraq uses Chaldo-Assyrian. WTF? These terms are all acceptable. Aramaean being used once again by our people is not a problem. The problem lies between Assyrian/Aramaean/Chaldean fanatatiscm which is repulsive. All these names should be cherished for the history that goes with them. None of these names should be denounced or placed above another. The fact of the matter is that we are called ASSYRIANS officially. Wikipedia WILL NOT change this. Sharru Kinnu III 16:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

spot on. it's not the multiple designations as such that are a problem, but the entrenched fanaticism on both sides. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand, Sharru Kinnu 3. I am not denying that the ancient Chaldeans and the ancient Aramaeans, are our forefathers. Regardless, the ancient Assyrians are our forefathers as well, and we have, for 2000 years now, identified as Suraya, or Suryoyo (depending on the dialect). We have recently began identifying as Aramaya and Kaldaya. The Aramaean faction, is of course, needless to say, a joke, because they still use Suryoyo more than they use Aramaya; they only claim descent from the ancient Aramaeans, and there is nothing on their side to prove this assertion, except of course, the holy infallible Syriac Orthodox Church. It's the same story with the Chaldean faction. Either way, we are the exact same people, and at the time, there is no need to split us up. We have major political issues in the homeland, and no one in the homeland cares deeply about some Aramaean identity. This is the time when we Assyrians, need to unite, and work together, for a better future. Call it nationalism or fanaticism if you will, or whatever. We have no time to hate each other, when we are being wiped out in the Middle East. Regardless of if we'll get an Assyrian state (I don't think we will), we must stick together. We will not be able to stick together, under 50 different identities. And since we have identified as Suraya/Suryoyo, and since there is archaeological evidence (like the Cinekoy inscription supporting the "disputed and false theory" (according to Benne) that Suraya/Suryoyo comes from Assuraya, that means we are Assyrians, and that it is time we act as Assyrians. United we stand, divided we fall. I would personally like all ethnic Assyrians to cooperate in difficult times like these, not fight over outdated self-designations. As for Benne, this is really none of his business and he should just stop disuniting us with his crappy sites. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:05 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Politics doesn't matter as long as we all accept we are one people. Our name doesn't make our people. Our people give us our name. Sharru Kinnu III 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We're never going to accept that we are one people, as long as people like Benne and Megalommatis are going to try and separate us with their divide and rule mentality simply because they have their political agenda. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:14 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Megalomotis' theories are not accepted by any prominent scholars. The only group or organization that cites his work is Aramnahrin.org which is completely discredited by citing a lunatic ultra-Kemalist Turk that denies a Christian genocide even took place in Turkey or that Kurds are an actual ethnic group. He is a radical to the Nth degree. Sharru Kinnu III 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, our impartial, unbiased, objective, and neutral editor, Benne, would swallow everything Megalommatis says about the "Aramaean nation and its spiritual genocide". Please, knock this lame crap off. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:28 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Childish bickering

Please compose yourselves as adults and speak in a non-argumentative manner. Sharru Kinnu III 16:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not singling anyone out. I'd say we've all been guilty of this at one point. Sharru Kinnu III 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

From Assyria to Syria

The former Assyrian territories outside of Assyria propper were Canaan and Aram. Canaan and Aram aka the Lowlands and Highlands became collectively known as Syria up until the fall of the Ottoman empire. In fact some Syrian parties refer to the area as Greater Syria and some even include Iraq and Kuwait which if you look at the map is basically all the territory of ancient Assyria outside of Egypt though including the Sinai. Aramaic gradually replaced Akkadian becoming lingua franca of the region until the Arab conquest and even withstood Hellenic rule for some time. Everyone that settled or were already in that area weren't all the same people though gradually over time many things could have happened including cultural assimilation/diffusion and possibly even mass migration and certainly genocide... What I'm trying to say is that Syria may have been derived from Assyria though it did refer to the former territories outside of Assyria propper and many people lived in died in those regions. Assyria and Babylon were multi-ethnic states as were most empires. This trend of claiming to be a master race is quite indeed RACIST. No one knows what they're anscestors really did 100 years ago let alone 1000-10000 years ago. How many bastard children are there in this world that don't know their fathers? Did you know that outside of the city states when the ancient Babylonians/Assyrians would conquer a city-state they would usually masacre the men and have children with their wives. They would have families in both the conquered lands and in their home towns. Sharru Kinnu III 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard the expressions p'salkhineh gildukh or m'paltina enoukh? That's how the emperial rein dealt with dissedency. Sharru Kinnu III 17:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not saying we are racially pure Assyrians. Of course we aren't. But I would bet we are a lot more of Assyrian ancestry than Aramaean or Chaldean ancestry. This trend of claiming to be a master race is quite indeed RACIST. — No one said anything about master race. Leave that to the Aryans. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:10 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I know your motives mean well but the fact of the matter is that not everyone identifies with one name and ultimately a compromise has to be reached that all these names are designated for the same people though we need one official title and 3, 4, and maybe even 5 supporting titles to go with it are fine. The reason I personally feel that Assyrian is appropriate is due to the fact that it was our most expansive empire [and also due to the fact that most of our people inhabit what was Assyria propper] though it wasn't our last indegenous empire [Babylonia under the Chaldean Dynasty was the last] and ironically was destroyed by the Medes and Chaldeans and ultimately our last indegenous empire fell to the Medes and Persians due to our own infighting and distrust between sister states and cultures [Babylon and Assyria]. Watch from Babylon to Baghdad: Kings of Iraq. It's a great history channel presentation. Our internal disputes were on a much more massive and brutal scale. This infighting about names is a lot better than us beseigin each other's city states for selfish reasons. Sharru Kinnu III 17:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as Assyrian is the official title for "Aramaeans", "Chaldeans", and "Syriacs", I really don't care if they call themselves something else, just so long as they accept that they are Assyrians, because that is what they are. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:26 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I got you. I don't like how some people hate one name or another. I mean Assyrian is well known throughout the world and using these lesser known names isn't really helpful though you have to understand human nature is imperfect and people are more emotionally attatched to something and tend to be irrational and less scientific thereby letting stubborness set in. People don't think on a macro scale for the most part. They think on a micro scale. Organize, Unite, and Prosper should be the new motto for this new generation of our people. We need to be like the Jews. They lived in Diaspora for Millenia. Now look at them; sitting on top of the world. They should be a model for our people. We need to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah by following their model. Maybe the Copts will follow suit too. haha of course I'm speaking allegorically. Sharru Kinnu III 17:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean Assyrian is well known throughout the world and using these lesser known names isn't really helpful — Exactly. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. As for the Isaiah prophecy, ain't gonna happen as long as you have dumbass Assyrians having a God's holy chosen people syndrome just because they speak Aramaic and want to be Aramaeans, and incessantly keep whining about "Aramaic is our sacred language" crap. Unbelievable, how pathetic that is. The Jews survived in the diaspora because they all identified as Jews. Either way though, I believe a nuclear war is going to break out soon between Iran/Israel/USA/Russia etcetera, and that there won't be anything left of Assyria. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:56 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

You have a gloomy outlook on existance. haha but you're not alone. I don't think anything that devestating will happen. This is another Cold War-like era. Sharru Kinnu III 18:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

New DNA tests

[11] An interesting one to say the least. Chaldean 13:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How new is it, and what exactly does it say? And what group was it conducted on? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:04 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

this is an ongoing project of "Family Tree DNA - Genealogy by Genetics, Ltd.", not a scientific study, and no results have been published. I am sure there must be better references. dab (𒁳) 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Elias why don't you email them. Dab, some results are shown. Their isn't much study done on us, so any study should be at least looked apon. I don't really understand what the results are saying, but perhaps they might have written a report on their findings. Chaldean 13:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

there results may be useful for studies, in the future. So far, it appears, they have tested 27 people and dumped the raw results online. This will need much more work before we have anything to cite. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction, they tested 39 so far, and that is a larger number then it seems since Assyrians are small in population (were not talking about a population of 50 million here.) Chaldean 13:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. So, what are you suggesting, Chaldean? — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:14 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Well their is an email address in the page. Perhaps we can contact them and ask them about their findings. Chaldean 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

All right then, I'll drop them a line. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:33 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I have a great fantasy about that. This is completely off-topic. What if they recently discovered the remains of Sargon the Great and it turned out after I participated in a study that I was directly descended of him. Then the Iraqi government collapses and I step in as the descendant of Iraq's greatest leader and fix everything. To top it all off Jesus returns and tells me great job and all ends well. lol not likely but I'm bored to death right now at work. Sharru Kinnu III 17:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sharru you'll have my application to be your chief minister 2morrow. Oh yeah, spare some of those Median concubines for me too, k?Tourskin 02:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Population statistics

Some of them are inaccurate. Are there any better sources available, like, official sources from the governments? — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:40 24 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

we could try the www.cia.gov site?Tourskin 07:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, do you have anything available? — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:25 29 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Syrian Orthodox = Assyrian Orthodox

File:Mor Marqos Monastery Assyrian.jpg

Before the 1950's.

File:Mor Marqos Monastery Syrian.jpg

After the 1950's.

Just some pictures of the Syriac Orthodox Church and how it's trying to get rid of its Assyrian roots. The Hebrew text still says Ashuri though. Should we include this in the Assyrian naming dispute? Oh and by the way, what does Benne have to say about this? I mean, why would these "Aramaeans" call their Church Assyrian? — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:39 26 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Who knows who put that sign up? It seems very old, it might have been the English (who happened to have invented Assyrianism). Did you notice that in Arabic, it says سريان (Syriac), not آشوري (Assyrian)?

More interestingly: do you see the flags waving on the second picture? Looks like the Aramaean flag to me ... --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 11:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Syrian Orthodox Church, put up this sign. That was before the radical Aramaeanist ideology began to spread like the disease it is. The Britons did not invent "Assyrianism". That is of course a lie from Aramaeanist fanatics. Yes, today, the Aramaeanist movement has infected some parts of the Syrian Orthodox Church in the Middle East as well. Though it's not as much as in Europe. Benne, why are you spreading lies about Britons? You shouldn't be disingenuous like that. Syrian and Assyrian are used as synonyms in that picture. Oh and by the way, in Hebrew, it still reads Ashuri. Your conspiracy theories of Britons inventing this and that are taken directly from aramnahrin.org — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:57 26 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

the second image would be nice as an illustration of the naming dispute article. However, the image appears to originate from {{somewebsite}}. Unless we can source that photograph properly, it should be deleted. --dab (𒁳) 08:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The second image is not from some website. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:14 27 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

wherever it is from, no source is given. If you have taken it yourself, please use the appropriate tags. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian <---> Syrian Chart

[12] Dab, in your honest opinion, what is wrong with that chart? It is as you can see, well referenced.[13] And with the pictures above in mind, you can see the Syrian Orthodox Church, as the Assyrian Orthodox Church. Here, you can read about the first Assyrian Church in America, during the 1890's. Oh and guess under what name? Assyrian Orthodox Church. And with the two pictures above, you can clearly see that this Aramaean fanaticism began in the early 1970's. Believe me, Chaldean and I are telling you the truth; unlike Benne, we are not into historical revisionism. There is nothing wrong with the picture. We have always identified as Assyrians, until now, recently, some Assyrians, have become anti-Assyrians, and have embraced "Aramaeanism". So please tell me Dab, why do you object to this picture? — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:52 27 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Dab, any comments? — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:52 28 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Dab, if you refuse to discuss this, perhaps you shouldn't revert the image? — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:25 29 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

are you serious? you want to present your snapshot of a street sign as a "reference" for your chart? Your chart is tendentious, and graphically flawed anyway. Use Mediawiki's "timeline" feature for things like this. dab (𒁳) 12:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediawiki does not do the job. This is the only proper way to show the link of how Assyria became Syria and back to Assyria throughout history. And its referenced numerous times thank you very much, so as of right now you dont have any reason to remove it. Chaldean 13:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I cant stand people editing without discussion. This guy thinks he owns the article and comes every once in a while and completly changes the article. He aperantly does not want to work with others but wants it to be his own personal project. I'm done with this. Chaldean 13:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, clearly, there are some WP:OWN issues. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:30 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian Cuisine and Culture

Once again I would like to avert attention to the other articles. You know history is meaningless without culture. Someone do something please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.250.58 (talk • contribs)

Assyrian people picture

Hopefully this will rdivert some of our energy to a less useful controversial cause no such thing as arameanists only assyrians. Whats happened with the Assyrian people pic for the info box? The votes for the number of people used is at a tie. How great. Well? This needs to be resolved.Tourskin 07:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the current one is not good. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:25 29 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I've grown quite sick with this revisionist Aramaean movement. I'd like some real numbers as to how many people actually identify with that misnomer. I am not a God damn Highlander. I am an Assyrian. I refuse to be an Assyrian Hillbilly. That was Aramaya means. Fuck that. You call yourselves hillbillies, that's fine. I'm an Assyrian. That's like George Bush stating he's not American but he's Appalacian. WTF? It may be true but for Christ's sake enough deviation from identifying by our most prestigious roots to that of second class citizens [scribes and servants]. I just don't understand why one would wish to identify with dominated nomads. They were dominated by Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians with never an empire of their own. Sharru Kinnu III 12:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Aramaean faction is clearly exaggerated on Wikipedia by Benne. Yes, they exist, but they are not representative for all Assyrians. All Assyrians in the Syrian Orthodox Church, even the Aramaye fanatics, identify as Suryoyo (which means Assyrian), and most members of the Syrian Orthodox Church don't really give a shit about "Aramaeans". The Arameanism movement began in the 1970's, and before that, no one had heard much of Arameans in the Middle East for hundreds of centuries. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:07 29 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, some of these quasi-historians are rewriting history how they see fit in line with their twisted perception and likely devious intentions. I don't even feel comfortable with the term 'Assyrian Neo-Aramaic.' It should be referred to as either 'Modern Syriac' or 'Modern Assyrian' which in no way would imply Akkadian simply by 'Modern' Being placed in front of it. Like you mention the term Aramaean was not used for centuries before this revisionist movement. Aturaya on the other hand along with Suraya has been used for ages. Sharru Kinnu III 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking, it's arguable if it is Aramaic we speak. Sure, it is a dialect of Aramaic, but let's face it, it's not intelligible with ancient Aramaic, and a lot of it is mixed with Akkadian words as well. As for the revisionists, as I've said so many times before, they shouldn't be taken seriously. I read on a Swedish forum recently some Suryoyo Oromoyo fanatics, again, talking about how Jesus, allegedly, had Aramaean blood. Come on? This is getting ridiculous. It reminds me of Positive Christianity and how they made Jesus into some Aryan fighter taking on the Jews. It's the same stupidity repeated again, only this time, Assyrians are getting infected with this stupid revisionism crap. I can see it clearly now: Aryan -> Aramaean. So anyway, what are we going to do about the Assyrian people picture? Tourskin, what is your main complaint about the one we have now? — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:00 30 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Ok so I take it that I should not have made that joke at teh top? Now that we've got all the shit out of our system, can we go back to the pictures? The problem is that it looks like us four usual contributors (Me, Elias, Chaldean and Sharru) have tied it cos its an even number. So someone has to defect and sell their vote to either 4 or 8 pictures. And then back to deciding what Arameanist troll son of a gun Assyrians should appear.Tourskin 07:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, back to the pictures. What's wrong with the one I added? I think it should be 8. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:47 30 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

8 is insane. Our most important people are as follows: Sargon of Akkad, Hammurabi, Nebuchudnezar, and Agha Petros. Sharru Kinnu III 18:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

lol, why all military leaders though? We need more recent examples. This article is about modern Assyrians. One Assyrian king is enough in the header picture. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:05 31 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Assyria was always dictated by military leaders. Those that deviated from that were the reason for the demise of our nation into this passivist version of Christianity we followed until our demise. Sharru Kinnu III 19:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that you're against Christianity? Christianity isn't the problem. We've been stateless ever since the Assyrian empire fell. And that was before Christianity. Anyway, this article shouldn't focus too much on old Assyrian kings etcetera. I'll make crop some pictures of Assyrians later, need to get some stuff fixed first. We can decide later which picture we'll use. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:57 01 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

No I'm clearly stating I'm against pacifism. I as an Assyrian leader we become militant to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 19 and as Saudi Arabia has their creed on the flag ours would be Luke 11:32 and not because I believe in that literally but to win this fight you have to beat them at their own game and we all know how flawed the Qur'an really is. I like the Church of the East's version of Christianity. It was the basis of what later became the bastardized version of heretic Christianity called Arianism that later devolved to Islam. Sharru Kinnu III 00:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to have more then one ancient figure in the picture. I think 8 is a possibility - like Russian people. Chaldean 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You know that honestly doesn't look bad. Sharru Kinnu III 01:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

DUDES!! If we don't add Linda george, we wont get many...hits, u could say. Besides,it will prove we r not gay nor ugly, no offence to gay / ugly people12.105.242.43 07:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

lol, anyway, I'll get down to work on some pictures soon. Don't do anything until then :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:14 01 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Linda George is old and plus we have half of Ramona Amiri on our side. She's as sexy as sin. Sharru Kinnu III 00:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think half Assyrians should be representing Assyrians in the picture. Chaldean 02:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that wholly. What difference is it if they're only half yet identify as Assyrian. She identifies as an Assyrian therefor she is an Assyrian and if Andre Aghassi did even being only 1/4 Assyrian than I would put him down too. I definitely think Ramona should be on the list as a testament to the beauty of Assyrian women. She's so pretty I'd marry the monitor with her picture on the display. lol Sharru Kinnu III 21:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So why not put a pic on the display and marry it? Lol or even better, lets just have four beautiful Assyrian woman as the picture!!!Tourskin 22:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone identifies as Assyrian, it doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is an Assyrian. Ever heard the concept of race? — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:33 03 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

She identifies as an Assyrian therefor she is an Assyrian - she also identify herself as an Persian. Ramona should be on the list as a testament to the beauty of Assyrian women. - how do you know her "beauty" isn't from her Persian side instead of her Assyrian side? The whole point of the picture is to show how that ethnic group looks like - by putting up half or 1/4 of that ethnic group in subject is basically misleading. Chaldean 02:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Everyday this movement moves one step closer to Nazism and concepts of racial purification. This is where I begin to distance myself yet again from Sourayeh. Chizlee min toukhmeikhoun. Move forward please our nation is not the Fourth Reich. Sharru Kinnu III 16:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And in response to Elias; the concept of race is quackery and a game of divisive politics that helps no one; but the maintenance of the status quo. Sharru Kinnu III 16:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

---

read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race#Current_views_across_disciplines

Scientist argue it both ways that it's valid or invalid according to what it's being used for by which how it's being argued here is akin to Nazi Racial Purification not valid scientific research. Sharru Kinnu III 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please knock it off with your pathetic Godwhining. If a guy from Indo-China comes out of nowhere and says he's an Assyrian, he can not in anyone's right mind, be regarded as an Assyrian, unless of course, there actually is a majority of biological descent in him of Assyrian ancestors. What part of this, extremely logical explanation, don't you understand? No need to accuse us of being Nazis. That said, the Assyrian people picture(s) should feature, preferably, pure blooded Assyrians. Now of course, no Assyrian is racially pure. Claiming that, would be ridiculous. But including people in the picture, who have like, some grandfather who was Assyrian, and that's it, is what I would call, Assyrian supremacy; because we are neglecting his other non-Assyrian ancestors. By the way, Sharru, what do you know about Nazism anyway? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:13 03 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Ramona Amiri actually identifies more with her Persian ancestry, as she was raised to be Persian, essentially. See this interview. So let's complete that vote on the WikiProject Assyria page, please. --Šarukinu 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Philosophically Primitive People

I think we should add this category because it accurately describes 95% of Sourayeh today. I put that on my life. Sharru Kinnu III 16:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself; I am ten times more philosophically advanced than you ever could be. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:31 03 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention you by name but thanks for the childish answer. lol Sharru Kinnu III 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh by the way "Godwhining" doesn't apply to this conversation maybe you should read the whole article before applying you're illogic to this topic.

Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.

This is clearly propaganda; and racial purity is a mainstay of the Nazi Regime. You may know laws and established theories but that doesn't make you smarter. Einstein said it isn't about knowing everything but where to find the information. Sharru Kinnu III 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In case you need a definition of propaganda: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." Source: Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda And Persuasion, 4th edition, 2006.

I don't know my own people. Trying to manipulate me into believing I'm confused in order to create a lack of confidence in my personal knowledge in order for me to agree that you're right so I can be indoctrinated as you and believe your beliefs is clearly propaganda. I don't know who indoctrinated you into this believer of Racial politics but I refuse to carry the disease and be a host organism for this deadly virus and I further refuse to pass it on to anyone else. Sharru Kinnu III 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Deadly virus"? You are unquestionably, indoctrinated. Let me tell you one thing about Assyrians: we are undeniably, racists. Not racists in the sense that we go and wipe out other populations based on their skin colour, but we are definitely racists in the sense that we preferably marry with our own people only. And considering our situation, no country, spread throughout the world as dwindling minorities, that's a good thing. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:00 04 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Caught in Americana: Black vs White

This is one negative Anglo-American/European/Primitive concept that has been infused into our people. Get it out. What I mean is that we are not a racist people that divide people up based on their ethnicity. I mean hell we all have biases towards our own inner-circle that's just natural but our division was based on are they Sourayeh or not and if they wanted to be they could. If someone speaks Sourith and is a member of one of our churches they are our people. That's how it is weather you accept it or not. It's not up to you to validate weather someone is truly Souraya. And if you don't agree with that, that's fine. You are entitle to your beliefs. Not everyone accepts what you have to say. So weather or not you agree that someone that is only half or quarter Assyrian is truly representative of our people is your opinion not absolute fact. Sharru Kinnu III 17:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what biological descent means? I don't care what you say. If some guy from Japan says he's an Assyrian, he better make sure that he's capable of proving it, that at the very least, one of his parents are of Assyrian ancestry. Even if that was the case, I wouldn't regard him as an Assyrian. Does that make me an evil Nazi racist? Of course not. I'm just looking at it objectively. And you should as well. You have to understand, not everyone can claim to be Assyrian. Assyrian, is an ethnicity; Assyrians are a group of relatively homogeneous people, and we have a unique DNA profile that distinguishes us from all other people. This is one negative Anglo-American/European/Primitive concept that has been infused into our people. — Indo-Europeans have nothing to do with this. Get it out. — Why? What I mean is that we are not a racist people that divide people up based on their ethnicity. — You obviously don't know anything about your own people. We are just as much racists as any other group of people. In fact, anyone who says Germans, Americans, Africans, or whatever, aren't racists, is lying. All humans are racists, more or less anyway. It's just that there are some people who are less hypocritical about it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:29 03 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Sharru, I really don't know what your problem is but you need to stop accusing other users here of "Nazism". Please clean up your act. Chaldean 23:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have had enough of this. Everybody , without a word of nazism or communism, please just type a number and then sign it. This number is eitehr 4 or 8 and is the number of people. If there is a tie, we'll do six; a two by three. Anyone disagree? Too bad, lets just do it, heres my vote:

4 people Tourskin 23:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Elias you really turn an argument against you even when its not. I'm not speaking of Racism as in prejudice against another race but in the sense that we don't group people as black and white in the manner that is done in the west. We group people in terms of religion and tongue not genetic predisposition. That is a contemporary phenomenon within our people due to Western influences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs) 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Elias you really turn an argument against you even when its not. — That is because some people simply refuse to understand, or listen, because they are politically correct. Here's a good saying for you: Condemnant quod non intellegunt. I'm not speaking of Racism as in prejudice against another race but in the sense that we don't group people as black and white in the manner that is done in the west. — This has nothing to do with black people. However, for the record, they are Negroids, and we are Caucasoids. We group people in terms of religion and tongue not genetic predisposition. — Yes, we are ethnoreligious. That is not always a good thing, though it can be useful in the Middle East. Oh and, I do agree with Chaldean, you really should stop accusing others of Nazism. We are Assyrians. We can by default, not be Nazis, because the Nazi ideology, despises two things: Semitic peoples, and Christianity (which is regarded as Judaism 2.0 or something). And before you post something ignorant about "BUT HITLER WAS A CATHOLIC LOL", you know nothing about the Nazi ideology if that's what you think. So anyway, stop accusing us of Nazism simply because we want Assyrians in the header picture and not non-Assyrian members of our Churches. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:10 04 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

He may have been born Catholic but he sure as shit didn't practice it. In fact he was believed to have practiced an occultist religion venerating ancient germanic pagan gods and some thought he downright went mad with syphilis and worshipped Satan. His niece/wife was a whore and banged all his guards and associates and passed on the love to him making him the mad man we all know and dispise. Sharru Kinnu III 14:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Nazism as an ideology, puts a lot of emphasis on the Germanic peoples pre-Christian religions. Anyway, can we focus on the picture here? Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:34 04 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Eight is Great

I say Eight people works for me as with the Russian people page. Sharru Kinnu III 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, 88 stands for Heil Hitler :P — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:25 04 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting angry with dealing with this article.

I'm going back to cuisine. Our food has preserved our culture better than any of this political garbage. Sharru Kinnu III 02:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Godspeed. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:25 04 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

OH GEES!!! I CAME BACK ONLY TO SEE THAT U KIDS COULDN'T STOP !!! Look, I said 4 people. Sharru said 8. Elias, what say u? Anyone else? Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Tourskin 23:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I told you, 8. Hang on, I will do some work on the picture, putting it all together with excellent resize filters and everything. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:43 05 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I say 4. --Šarukinu 12:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian Cuisine and Syriac script

Can someone help with the names of the foods and if one has more pictures please upload them. I want to make it a featured article. Sharru Kinnu III 14:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll help with some of the names in the Syriac script :) --Šarukinu 12:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"identity"

• stop conflating genetics and "identity"
• stop conflating etymology and "identity"
• stop saying "Ancient Assyrians" twice in every sentence

Assyrian nationalism is a significant portion of Assyrian identity, but that doesn't mean our "identity" section may be written from a blatant Assyrian nationalist pov. --dab (𒁳) 13:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Genetics is a very important part of our identity. Look, as an anti-nationalist, the concept of "human races" is a sinful word to you. But the modern Assyrians, are of the same Caucasoid race as the ancient Assyrians. Perhaps some biological differences have occurred the past 2600 years, but we are genetically more or less, the same, as the ancient Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:35 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

also, it is ridiculous to give 13 (!) independent footnotes to a statement "The Assyrians manifested a remarkable degree of linguistic, religious, and cultural continuity", incidentially without making clear where in this "wealth" of literature the claim can be found. This is simply spam. let's take have a look at "Ashurbanipal and the Fall of Assyria". here S. Smith is one of the few historians who, even though he expresses a certain ambivalence in his preliminary remarks, nevertheless affirms that the fall of the Assyrian empire did not automatically lead to its disappearance, but rather to the loss of its independence. That sounds rather different, doesn't it? It transpires that the "cultural continuity" is a claim disputed in scholarship, pure and simple. In our 13 references, the lady doth protest rather too much: an obvious case of cherry-picking. We can state the question is disputed, and quote one reference pro, and one against, and be done. What we have here is an obviously disingenious smoke-screen. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:35 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I think he's possessed. Call an exorcist. He's losing grip of reality. Dude quite honestly shut up. We Assyrians will not have our history rewritten by our enemies. Bow down to the truth. We are who we are. Don't fear our reemergence into the forefront of contemporary history. We have lots to offer from our lessons learned in governance and the lack thereof... The Muslims WILL destroy you. So listen into our wisdom. Sharru Kinnu III 06:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sharru Kinnu III, what are you even doing on Wikipedia? Have you read what this project is about? It't not a message board for indulging assorted ethnic prides. quite honestly, bow to the project's policy or shut up. dab (𒁳) 10:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What am I doing; making sure people like you don't pervert our history. That's my goal. I have contributed positively to every article I've worked on and this is a TALK page not an ARTICLE and I'm quite offended by your anti-nationalist sentiment just as I am by extreme nationalist sentiment. YOU can't change things because YOU don't agree with them. You can look up my edit history. I don't make radical changes to articles I don't agree with. You can quite honesty and should be banned for your ethnocentric view that you try to veil under the guise of Wikipedia policy. Sharru Kinnu III 13:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"the chart"

Further information: Template:Syriac history

do a proper timeline, alright? without the graphical tricks. If you must do a 4,000 year timeline, do it properly.

guys, your "chart" is a joke. It's an illustration of how the above timeline looks after being distorted in the mind of an Assyrian nationalist. Fix it or remove it. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is very obvious to me, that your pathetic anti-Nationalism sentiments, are in way of your objectivity. You know, nationalists, aren't by definition, wrong in every case possible. Some times, a nationalist isn't bullshitting you. And by the way, don't take my word for it, listen to what the Assyriologists are saying. They are neither Assyrian nationalists, and they are neither biased, in their studies. So why do you have such huge issues with that chart? Do you actually believe that Suraya/Suroyo means Aramaya/Oromoyo and not Assurayu? What the hell? What kind of logic is this? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:00 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

wow. anti-nationalist 'sentiment'. Such as drawing a timescale that is actually to scale? --dab (𒁳) 13:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your scale is fine. It's just that it's not about the naming dispute. This naming dispute, has been going on for over 30 years in the Assyrian diaspora, it needs an illustrative picture that clears up the confusion. A timetable reflecting our Churches, is beside the point. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:56 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

infobox

give us a break Elias. Do you see "Old English (ancient) / English (modern)" / "Anglo-Saxon polytheism (ancient) / Anglicanism (modern)" at English people? No? How about you try asking yourself why not. dab (𒁳) 10:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it such a grave sin to list the old language we've spoken? As the source I cited says, we have spoken two languages in our history. Of course, according to a biased anti-nationlist like you, we have no biological connection with the ancient Assyrians whatsoever, but we who are a little more rational about this, and especially I, think it's very important that we list both Akkadian, and the modern dialect of Aramaic (Neo-Syriac) in the language list. Jew has all sorts of historic and no longer in use languages that Jews speak and have spoken. Why the hell is it such a fatal sin if we list Akkadian, especially considering that the modern Neo-Aramaic language is not pure Aramaic, but in fact, a hybrid of Akkadian and Aramaic? I think you should get your act together. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:01 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

did I mention any "fatal sins"? If anything is a sin, it is your continued waste of people's time with your nationalist one-tack-mindedness. Anti-nationalist bias, huh? You might as well accuse me of rabid anti-bias bias, or pro-Wikipedia bias. And am I ever guilty of that. Look, the Jews have a tradition of Hebrew. It's their liturgical language, same as the Syriac language is that of the Syriacs. The Akkadian language, otoh, survived in no tradition whatsoever, and was reconstructed from archaeological finds. The Syriacs simply have nothing to do with it. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The "fatal sin" remark, was needless to say, sarcasm meant to ridicule your obsession in cleansing this article from any connection possible to the ancient Assyrians. The Akkadian language, survived in both the Aramaic dialects we speak today (to some extent, of course). Did you even bother to read this? Don't be ignorant, check out that vocabulary list. If you think Syriac is some kind of pure Aramaic dialect, you are mistaken. And just like Hebrew was a completely extinct and dead language, it was reconstructed and taken up again by Jews. The only difference is that we haven't begun to speak Akkadian again, it could be because there's no Assyrian state as of right now. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:17 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I am not cleansing anything. The Syriacs descend from the population of the Assyrian empire. That's granted, and it is sufficient to state that once and be done. End of story. How about you widen your horizon a bit and instead of the stale hype surrounding those boring old imperialist Assyrians glow in nationalist pride that your ancestors were fluent in Proto-Nostratic? It's true too! Your own ancestors were real mesolithic hunter-gatherers who roamed these lands tens of millennia ago! --dab (𒁳) 13:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dab, please don't waste my time with your trolling, all right? Yes, my ancestros have perhaps spoken Sumerian. That is beside the point. We identify as Assyrian, and that's what matters. Can you at the very least respect the sources I've cited? This is not about the Assyrian empire, it's about giving a detailed overview of the modern Assyrian people, and it is inevitable, that the ancient Assyrians be mentioned in this, and that's not because of some Assyrian nationalism, but because it's part of our history. I mean, what the hell, do you think we just popped up in the Middle East out of nowhere? — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:52 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

That's quite pathetic Dab. I think we have the intelligence to comprehend that we all have a common ancestor in mitochondrial Eve and what you're doing is just using rhetoric to try prove you are right by using one truism and using it to veil a body of lies. We are not stupid. No one will accept your radical views. It will be reverted once everyone realizes your true deceitful intentions. You can't change our history through Wikipedia. Sharru Kinnu III 13:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I don't have more time to participate in this enlightening discussion, but I have to say I agree with Dbachmann about the chart--this article is about the modern Assyrians, and as far as I can tell they don't speak Babylonian. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to break it down to you, pal, but the Babylonians and the Assyrians spoke the same language.[14] A lot of it, has survived in the modern Assyrian language. And by the way, for your information, the Assyrians and the Babylonians, were the same people. I mean, why do you think we have Ishtar TV, named after a Babylonian goddess? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:06 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

VERY IGNORANT COMMENT -Akhilleus. First of all Babylonians spoke Akkadian and the language we speak to day is arguably not ARAMAIC because of many reasons. For one we call it Soureth which means Syrian or Syriac which in our context implies Assyrian. Our language is infused with an Akkadian lexicon so just because you stated something completely wrong in agreement with Dab doesn't conclude this argument in his favor. Sharru Kinnu III 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

An another thing even within ancient Babylon and Assyria "Aramaic" displaced Akkadian. So yes we are their continuation in every aspect of the phrase. We are the continuity of the indigenous people of ancient Assyria otherwise known as Northern Iraq not present-day Babylonia but of Assyria therefore we call ourselves Assyrian. Do Native "Americans" accept the term universally. No, because they were there before the existance of America and just because they are popularly and in politically correctness termed that doesn't make it an absolute fact. and another thing, Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Facts have more clout than personal opinions. This is fact that we are Assyrian and the term is universally accepted throughout the United Nations. Sharru Kinnu III 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus,[15] your opinion, is completely irrelevant. What you think is irrelevant. You are not a scholar. Here on Wikipedia, we go credible sources. This encyclopaedic article (and many others like it), claims that we have a linguistic evidence that supports our claim of being descendants of the ancient Assyrians. If this is not enough for you, I can give you a lot of other articles. You want to call that "uncivil"? Fine, but you are being unencyclopaedic by disregarding sources we are citing. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:19 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the favorable evaluations of my intelligence, gentlemen, I'm quite aware of the historical connection between ancient Babylonian and neo-Aramaic. But guess what, we don't say in Italian people that the Italians' ancient language was Latin--at least not in the chart, it is in the body of the article, where it's appropriate. In a similar way, this article mentions in the "language" section that ancient Assyrians spoke Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian) and talks about the relationship of neo-Aramaic languages to Akkadian. This dispute simply concerns what should be in the infobox--it has nothing to do with whether that information is cited or not, but whether that information should be in the infobox at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even bring up your intelligence. But it's nice to know that you consider irrelevant opinions and IQ to be synonymous. In any case, the infobox issue, is obviously a matter of choice. Some articles, like for instance Jew, lists both ancient and modern languages spoken by Jews. What is the problem, and why can't we do that also, here in this article? Is there some sort of Wikipedia policy about infoboxes? And by the way, the chart, is very important. It is well cited, and you shouldn't just disregard it altogether. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:28 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place where you can gather your friends and like-minded individual to rally for you in order to carry out your political aspirations. We are presenting our history in a completely neutral way and if we see something that isn't true. WE will point IT out because WE are the PEOPLE this article mentions so logically don't you think for one second that we would point out innacuracies as we are doing so in this very dialog. I understand that there is indoctrination in society where some may fall victim to popular disbeliefs and urban legends but when we have an actual and viable source quoted in which you simply refute for whatever inconceivable reason; then, you are not working within Wikipedia guidelines and it becomes even more evident that you are in violation of policy. Take the log out your eye before you try to take the sty out of mine. Don't project your wrongdoing on others to avoid responsibility for your own deceitful action. [Dab] Sharru Kinnu III 14:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"VERY IGNORANT COMMENT" sounded like a comment on my intelligence, was I mistaken? At any rate, I see things haven't changed much on this page since I last looked at it: comments that are about style are mistaken as politically-driven censorship, and there are huge WP:OWN problems. It's too bad; I'd really like to learn more about the modern Assyrians! --Akhilleus (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad; I'd really like to learn more about the modern Assyrians! — How about actually allowing us to cite sources without being accused of Nazi-like nationalism issues by Dab every five seconds? You'd learn a lot more about us if you weren't deletionists but rather, inclusionists. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:45 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with what you said Akhilleus. I wasn't commenting on your intelligence but on the very comment itself which was not correct and I pointed out what wasn't correct about it. You are learning about modern Assyrians. This is what we deal with on a daily basis even within our own people. Mass confusion of historical facts and basing life on urban legends is the norm within the non-intellectuals or everyday common folk. A superstitious and often Islamically-brainwashed lay people comprises the majority as I would like to point out is the case even within America being here most of my life is understanding that most people aren't fully logical and everyone has an irrational side and basing history on the irrational side is nonsensical because it has an established scientific method. Sharru Kinnu III 14:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think ancient religion and language need to be in the infochart as well. We need to follow the guidelines followed by other ethnic pages. Chaldean 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and our most closely related group is Jewish and we will do as they do. Sharru Kinnu III 14:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a time-line should chronicle our entire documented existance as Assyrians which would include the ancient chronology which would encompass our ancient relgion and language.

As I stated this before, you can't compare us to the Jews because Jewish people isn't a core ethnicity, but a religious group as well. You compare Assyrian people with Greeks or Armenians. Chaldean 15:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Jews are an ethnic group, and they have their own religion (which ours is mostly based on). All Jews, are part of the same ethnic group. It's just that Jews aren't ethnically homogeneous any longer, as a result of having lived in a diaspora for a very long time. It will happen to us as well (if our people, survives assimilation; I don't think we will). The Jewish article is a very good example of how we should do. After all, we are in the same situation they were in. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:04 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I don't think ancient religion and language need to be in the infochart as well. So, should we remove Syriac Christianity and Neo-Aramaic as well then? — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:07 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Last time I checked we still practice Syriac Christianity and Syriac is a dialect of Neo-Aramaic. Chaldean 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And last I checked, our history as a people, did not start with Neo-Aramaic and Syriac Christianity. The infobox is just a summary of the Language and Religion sections anyway. So it should include the minor details as well. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:13 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is meant of updated information, not historical notes (that is what the article is for!). Why not put old population numbers for each country in the infobox as well? Chaldean 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a bad parallel. Listing old languages, is not wrong. Listing old population statistics, is not easy to prove. I fail to see your correlation. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:30 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to call the religion Judaism is accepted but does not mean the religion started in Judea for the fact of the matter is that Abraham came from Mesopotamia and you need to understand that city-states were viewed as sovereign states and the concepts of empire were just beginning to emerge with allegiances of city-states forming policies and guidelines as to the rules of the game be it war or trade. The ancients had as much city-state pride as modern nations do and they would have eventually aligned with city-states of similar heritage and ultimately grasping the concept of Adam and Eve be it religious or scientific began to establish what we see to day as Globalism and the ultimate goal of fully uniting the world into one organized unit. The ancient religion of Abraham existed within Mesopotamian culture for God-knows-how-long and Jewish people until this day even the European ones have always been an ethno-religious group just like us. Even Arabs are a subset within the "Semitic" people that identify by religion and tribalism which is interpreted here as ethnicity or race. I think I went overboard in trying to prove my point but it all applies to the topic. lol Sharru Kinnu III 15:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

lol — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:30 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this article is about the modern Assyrian people - not who we used to be, but who we currently are. The infobox, above all, should focus on the modern aspects of the Assyrians, not ancient details. The whole reason I created the History of the Assyrians article was so that we could deal with such issues there. With regards to the infobox, it could be potentially misleading to include a language which our people haven't spoken in over 2 000 years. To me, personally, it's not a huge deal - let's just try and minimize any potential confusion. --Šarukinu 19:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is meant to be informative. How is it misleading, to include our old language? Do you know why there are Assyrians who think they are Aramaeans today? Because they don't know, that their ancestors spoke Akkadian, and they don't know, that their Neo-Aramaic dialect, is infused with Akkadian words. If anything, it's misleading to remove every connection with our ancestors in this article. You are only perpetuating confusion, by cutting the connections with our forefathers. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:32 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

if you are interested in discussing Akkadian loans in Neo-Aramaic, feel free to cite your linguistic references at Neo-Aramaic languages. Claiming "we are Akkadians because our ancestor loaned words from the Akkadian language" is like claiming the English are really Welsh because there are some Welsh loanwords. Your contributions are still ignoring the issue. dab (𒁳) 14:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on that rationale, it's just as preposterous to claim that we are "Aramaeans" because our ancestors "loaned" the language from them. You can't compare this with the Welsh. It's a well known fact today, because of archaeology, that the ancient Assyrians in Neo-Assyrian times were bilingual Aramaic/Akkadian speaking. Obviously, the Neo-Aramaic lanuages' large Akkadian vocabulary, is a result of this. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:54 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Aramaeanism again

[16] Benne, is your blatant bias ever going to stop? What's wrong now? The picture, is heavily sourced. I added another great excerpt from Simo Parpola's brilliant explanation which explains that Syrian was in use even in Neo-Assyrian times.[17] I will add even more sources. If you're going to claim that Syriacs are somehow magically "Aramaeans", then you had better make sure you got some academic sources to back that ridiculous statement up with. I did a quick check on your editing history.[18] It seems, that you have since you began editing on Wikipedia, been up to Aramaization. Now look, you have for over two years now, been up to this Aramaization. Something, is obviously not right with you. You claim that you are not a Syriac Orthodox. Yet you have this weird obsession with Syriac Orthodox and Aramaean revisionism. Either you are lying, and you are in fact a Syriac Orthodox who believes you are an "Aramaean", or you have some weird, inexplicable agenda, only God knows what you're up to. I think it's time for you to explain what's going on here, why you're vandalizing Assyrian-related articles (because that's really what you're doing), and what motivates your Aramaeanist obsession. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:39 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

The picture is misleading, and only partly sourced. It says that Syriacs started calling themselves Aramaeans in the late 20th century. I have provided plenty of sources proving otherwise, by citing both Syriac and Greek authors from the first centuries until now who identified Syrians with Aramaeans. That sort of information must be rather disturbing for your nationalist mindset, but it's a fact. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 08:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Benne, you clearly fail to understand WP:RS if you're trying to bring up pathetic ancient Greek and Syriac authors against the incontrovertible evidence provided by Elias. --dab (𒁳) 09:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Benne, you still haven't explained where your Aramaeanist obsession comes from. Also, your sources are not academic. I tried once adding sources from aina.org on the Bahira article, and everyone began reverting my sources, and they demanded academic sources. Same rules apply here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:29 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had established both Syriac/Assyrian and Aramaean were in use? suryoyo-oromoyo.info.se gives the following sources:

• Catholicos-Patriarch Timotheos I of the (“Nestorian”) Church of the East (born in Hazza (Erbil), Iraq, † 9.1. 823 in Baghdad) says to other East-Syrian bishops about Mor Yeshu'zkho ,, Mor Yeshu'zkho the Aramean,episcopos of (the city of) Seleucia…..About Catholicos Dodyeshu he says,, Catholicos Dodyeshu' the Aramean… “
• The East-Syrian or (of the "Nestorian" Church) writer and bishop Yeshudad from Haditha († 853) wrote in his book "The light of the world": "The Greek translation [the Septuagint] calls all Aram and Aramaeans "Syrian". Consequently, Aram becomes the father of the Syriacs. For this reason, those living in Mesopotamia were called "Aramaeans". There is another Aram descending from Shem, he dwelt in the land situated in the East side of the sun."
• Mor Afrem the Syrian (306-373), the famous Church father of the Syrian Church of Antioch, says about the famous Bar Dayson (154- 222 A.D) of Edessa,, Bar Dayson the Aramean Philosopher”
• The Syrian-Orthodox Mor Jacob of Edessa (Urhoy) (present-day Urfa in Turkey, †708) says: "It is in this same way also we the Arameans, that is to say the Syrians…"
• Monk Anton of Tikrit (Iraq, † 840-850) on Wafa the Aramean: “The fifth meter of poetry is usually composed of six or seven strophics whose number sometimes increases or decreases. This meter belongs to man named wafa, an Aramean philosopher”
• Dionoysius Bar Salibi the Syrian-Orthodox bishop of Amid (Diyarbekir, Turkey, †1171), also called the star from the 12th century, says in his book ‘Against the Armenians": "The Armenians say: "From whom do you descend - you who are Syriacs by race?" Against them we will say: Neither do you know from whom you descend....It is we (Syrians) who have enlightened your authors and revealed to them that you are descending from Togarma....As to us Syrians, we descend racially from Shem, and our father is Kemuel (the) son of Aram, and from this name of Aram we are also called sometimes in the books by the name of "Aramaeans".
• The Syrian-Orthodox Patriarch Mor Michael the Great of Militene (Malatya, Turkey, † 1199 AD) writes: "The Children of Shem are the Assyrians, the Chaldeans, the Ludians and the Arameans who are the Syrians, the Hebrew and the Persians.". The same author says about the Mesopotamian history” The kingdoms which have been established in antiquity by our race, (that of) the Aramaeans, namely the descendants of Aram, who were called Syrians” .
• East-Syrian ("Nestorian") lexicographer Bar Bahlul from Bagdad (†963) explains in his Syriac (Aramaic) dictionary the name "Syria": "And the Syrians were formerly called Arameans, (but) when Cyrus ruled over them, from then on they were called Syrians."

It transpires that to medieval Syriac authors, "Aramaeans" and "Syrians" were simply uncontroversial synonyms. The difficult thing is to establish why people like Elias today so zealously prefer one term over the other. There is no objective reason for this whatsoever, generations of learned Syriacs didn't care one bit about this, and the reason must be looked for in 20th century infighting between populist factions. The question is of very limited interest to anyone not particularly interested in the various recent Syriac political movements. dab (𒁳) 14:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please dab, a geocities site? I mean, WP:RS anyone? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:26 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
  • That does not make them, magically, unreliable. I randomly searched a few of those quotations and they all seem to exist elsewhere. El_C 21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Then go tell all the academic intelligentsia to investigate these quotes, and let them all decide that the modern Assyrians are Aramaeans or Assyrians. So far, we have no academic scholars saying that the modern Assyrians (Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs) are "Aramaeans." In fact, we call our own language, Sureth/Suryoyo, not Aramaic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:39 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
      • Bottom line is you can't have wiki supporting an imaginary ethnicity. Nobody in the homeland calls themselves Aramaean. Chaldean 21:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, Aramaeanism is spreading in the homelands, though it's not very substantial in the Middle East. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:41 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
          • No its no man lol. Maybe in Lebanon, which doesn't count, but certainly not in Iraq. Not in their dreams. Chaldean 03:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
            • No, of course not in Iraq. But yeah, in the Lebanon area probably. From what I've heard, the Aramaeanist revisionists here in Sweden are telling their relatives in the Middle East, and trying desperately to persuade them, that they are Aramaeans. To some extent, they are succeeding with their lies. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:09 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I was not quoting a geocities page as an authority. I was giving references to medieval authorities I happened to find on a geocities site. The bona fide editor will note the subtle distinction. --dab (𒁳) 10:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And it never crossed your mind that the quotes you found are somehow taken out of context. I mean, that site doesn't suffer from bias. Now, why are you removing the Assyrianidentity.png picture, despite the fact that it is full of refs to scholars? — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:08 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

it is true, I did not verify these references. But they are verifiable. All they illustrate is that medieval authors used "Syrian" and "Aramaean" synonymously. I do not think this is a controversial claim. Your 'timeline' is the result of subjective distortion, inspired by the desire to illustrate the "Assyrianist" case graphically. What value there was in it is better presented in the undistorted timeline. Endless repetitions of paragraph-length quotes of Parpola's take on etymological questions do not make them any more relevant. Cite Parpola once, briefly, and be done. --dab (𒁳) 12:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's quite clear to me now, you haven't even read what Parpola or Frye wrote. And you go ahead and verify those quotes. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:35 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Atheist/Agnostic Assyrians

I would have to say a substantial portion of the population whether admitting to it or not are non-believers and the way this article is presented makes it look like we're all avid church-goers which is clearly not the case. I myself am more of a pantheist/agnostic than the Catholic I was born. I mean culturally I'm Christian in adhering to certain cultural customs but I don't necissarily hold dear the dogma of the Church or a belief in a personal God and before anyone starts bashing my beliefs it is as it is and I feel that it should be represented in this article and even back home I'd have to say there are people that don't believe but refuse to state so for fear or excommunication within the community. Sharru Kinnu III 13:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, atheism/agnosticism, though still a minority, is certainly growing in the diaspora (from what I've heard). So, do you have any statistics? — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:27 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I would be one. My brother another. My cousin another... I know 3. lol 3/1.5 Million is a substantial percentage; until I can find more people I won't put down any specifics. Sharru Kinnu III 02:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We barely have any statistics of how many we are globally, I don't think there's any statistics of how many of us are atheists... — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:41 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Atheist per se but definately Agnostic. I don't even think you can real numbers for the United States in general due to the fact that we don't conduct religious censuses here. Sharru Kinnu III 12:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoting accurate and reliable sources...

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=31621 <---

Before anyone ever again quotes Muhammad S. Megalomatis ever again, please read this rediculous article of his. He is NOT a reliable source and is the source quoted for http://www.aramnahrin.org so with that said and done it renders both sites completely unreliable as AINA or any other politically motivated "news" or ethnic "news" web site. Please refrain from using quacks as sources. Sharru Kinnu III 13:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Megalommatis is a fraudster, and he's basically behind aramnahrin. AINA is somewhat biased, but the main difference, is that aina is actually basing its content on Assyriologists, and other academic scholars. Aina is a lot more credible than Megalommatis. By the way, have you seen this? It's great entertainment. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:26 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

To quote a guy that suggests putting Iraqi Arab Sunnis in a concentration camp and force them to learn Aramaic, as a source is really something else. Chaldean 14:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me: Aramaeanism needs some work. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:57 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

And that not only goes to Aramnahrin dot org but also to any other website that either uses Aramnahrin.org or him as a source. It's a downward spiral of lies if you check out they all interlink. Historical documents asside we have referred to ourselves as Syrians throughout the ages and according to prominent Assyriologist such as Frye Assyria and Syria are relative terms. Weather or not HISTORICALLLY Aramean and Syrian were used synonymous is irrelevant. Have you ever thought that maybe Assyrian and Aramaean were used synonymously due to the fact that they merged with the Assyrians on a macro and micro scale? Many Assyrian kings took Aramaean wives as a direct result of the changes in demographics in the empire along with the change in tounges. This is besides the point. I'm not going to cite this and have it claimed as original research because the fact of the matter is time and time again we continously cite reliable and achademic sources while Arameanists and even to a lesser extent Chaldeanists cite nothing but lies that revolve around other lies that are self-referrencing. This is a sham and please stop it. Sharru Kinnu III 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Further along that rout... I'm not stating we are not possibly descended of Arameans or Chaldeans to some extent but the fact of the matter is that we as the MODERN ASSYRIANS don't come from historical Aram or Chaldea/Babylonia but rather from NORTHERN IRAQ/MESOPOTAMIA. Where is the logic in this other than it being political to forcefully align us against each other? Sharru Kinnu III 16:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That has been my point all along. Though there is unquestionably in our heritage ancestry, some of our forefathers were Aramaeans and Chaldeans, that's of minor relevance. It's not like the Aramaeans were the largest ethnic group in Mesopotamia. It's more likely, that the Arabs in Syria are more Aramaeans than any Syriac Orthodox Christians. History, does not connect us all too much with Aramaeans (though it does to some extent), and the Chaldean dynasty, let's not even speak about that one. We Chaldean Catholics are not of royal blood, we are Suraya! By the way, check this out. They got it just about right. Where is the logic in this other than it being political to forcefully align us against each other? — No question about it, it's a divisive divide and rule mentality being used against us. Many Arabs Turks and Kurds know about this, and they're also using the naming disute politically against us. Megalommatis is just one of many. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:42 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I think that video production they're coming out with should be noted on here. It is exactly what this article is about. Sharru Kinnu III 04:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure, duly noted: Assyrian Identity. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:42 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Actions need to be taken against Dab

We need to report this admin is abusing his powers. He comes once a week and reverts all the work that has been done. No explanation, no discussion, nothing. And this is coming from a guy that barely understands the subject. Can someone please find the steps to report admin abuse. Chaldean 15:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Charges of "admin abuse" are usually overblown. The only admin tool Dbachmann has used here is rollback, and he's only used that after earlier edits that had a manual summary. You may disagree with his edits, but he is acting as a normal editor (aside from the two admin reverts, and that kind of thing is easily done by non-admin editors with tools like pop-ups. Note also that Dbachmann has copiously explained himself on this talk page, so it's not accurate to accuse him of not discussing. Moreover, the discussion above indicates that there is no consensus on the issues at stake, so if it's "abuse" for Dbachmann to revert, it's just as abusive for others to revert back. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is his explanation for his last revert? Moreover, did you even see his last revert? He removed the infobox template. I mean what reason can you have for this? Non, because the guy didn't even look at what he was reverting. He wants the article to be his own soul project and his last edit just proved that. Chaldean 15:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann has explained himself at length above. I could ask where Elias' explanation for his last 2 reverts is (especially since as far as I can see Elias has been warned about edit warring on this article, but Dbachmann has not). However, I can see that Elias has extensively explained himself above, so I won't accuse him of reverting without explanation. As for people who want the article to be their "own soul project", I think you might want to look at the behavior of some of the other editors of this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you see this chart? It is extensively cited with sources from academic scholars and other scholars. Dab, is reverting it, not because it doesn't fulfil WP:CITE and WP:RS, but because he's ad hominem attacking me, thinking I have NPOV issues, simply because I consider myself Assyrian (based on what Assyriologists have written about us). Look, if you understand our history, you will realise, I'm not wrong here. And I think dab is abusing this article. He accused me on my talk page for trying to "cover up" edits wars, simply because I created an Assyrian infobox template similarly to the Jew article: User_talk:EliasAlucard#Template:Infobox Jew. What the hell, isn't that being paranoid? I mean, come on? He is obviously uncivil. Dab has quite a long history of edit warring with "nationalists", as you can see here: User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism I mean, come on, we are not promoting a political ideology, we are just providing academic sources, and these sources, say that we Chaldean Catholics, Syriac Orthodox/Catholic, and Nestorians, are in fact, Assyrians. Now, if you have a problem with these sources, fine, but they do fulfil WP:RS, whereas the Aramaeanism sources do not. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:51 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

That chart cites sources, sure, but there's clearly a dispute over whether it cites all the relevant sources, and whether it's presenting information in a neutral way. I can't say I know a whole lot about disputes about Assyrian identity, but from your posts on this talk page, Elias, it seems to me that you're coming from a partisan perspective, and that makes me doubt your neutrality. If that makes me uncivil, I'm sorry. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find any actual sources, that are indisputable, that all Syriac Orthodox Christians identified as "Aramaeans" for 2000 years, I will accept it and change the chart. So far, all Benne and Dab are doing, is reverting and disrespecting the academic sources we have presented. Sorry, but that's not enough in my book. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:31 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

indeed. if you want to complain about my general conduct, do it at WP:RFC, not here. Note that the Hindutva crowd has cried "admin abuse" in my general direction for about two years, with no joy. The problem in general was that their "abuse" translated to "enforcement of Wikipedia policies". I'm always open to 3rd party input, however, and I am, after all, an "admin open to recall". May I suggest you try orchestrating a withering RfC before trying to "recall" me, especially since I didn't even use any admin buttons. --dab (𒁳) 16:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at you. Your making a mockery out of this important issue. Chaldean 16:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

why, because I am comparing you to our Hindutva zealots? Maybe they would feel just as mocked if I compared them with our resident Assyrianist zealots. "importance" and "truth" (also, dignity, and ridicule) are largely in the eye of the beholder. dab (𒁳) 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You can mock us all you like; I couldn't care less. But facts are facts, and you're removing facts without a reason. You should be reported imho. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:22 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I am doing no such thing. I am repeating endless repetition of the same fact (an etymological hypothesis) that is barely relevant, and that you keep repeating with obvious bias. Do report me for that then. I recommend WP:3O, but make my day and try WP:VIP if you like. dab (𒁳) 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to report you. At least not for now. I believe we can and should work together. But you should stop trying to depict me as some evil bad guy who has an evil nationalist agenda, trying to distort facts. That's not at all what I'm doing. But here's the truth about our history: we are in fact Assyrians, however, we are, just as Simo Parpola wrote in his article, disunited, most notably, in the diaspora. If you really want to cleanse Wikipedia from nationalist POV, go fix the articles Benne are trying to make Aramaization out of. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:04 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

the chart

is this about "the chart" or about "dab"? If the former, what are our sources for the relative width of the (green) Chaldean and (red) Aramaic positions of about 10% each, compared to the "mainstream" Assyrian one? What is our source that the period of 400 years 2400-2000 BC is of about equal importance in "Assyrian identity" as the ensuing period of 2300 years (Old Assyria over-represented by a factor of about 600%)? Completely glossing over the controversial "gap" of 600 years during Seleucid rule? We weren't born yesterday, Elias. These are cheap graphical manipulations used by every populist on the face of the earth. Problem: Wikipedia is not a populist publication. We can report on populism, but that would take notable populism, not some image cooked up by private Assyrian crusader EliasAlucard (talk · contribs). --dab (𒁳) 16:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Assyrian Orthodox Church of the Virgin Mary, Paramus, New Jersey Home Page [the first Syrian Orthodox Church established in the United States by immigrants who came from Diyarbakir, Turkey in late 1890's
• Assyrian Orthodox Archdiocese, signed 1952
• Historical document of Syrian Patriarch calling Syrian Orthodox Christians "Ancient Assyrian Nation" in 1920
• Syrian Orthodox Christians with a Sons of Assyria sign, in 1922, Worcester You want more? I mean, this is getting ridiculous. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:31 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Please report this guy. He is removing sourced information just because he refuses to believe it. What kind of a mentality is this? "NO NO NO CONNECTION, YOUR NOTHING BUT CHRISTIANS" is all I hear from this guy. He repeat, he is NOT knowledgeable about the subject to even have such a strong influence on the page. Chaldean 16:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dab's comment suggests that the chart should be deprecated as an example of an original synthesis of information, and one that quite possibly violates the NPOV policy, as well. To Elias: citing sources is not enough; it's how you use them that matters. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Where and how have I used these sources wrong and inaccurately? The entire reason why I'm using the quote feature of {{cite web}} is because I want you and dab, who know nothing about this, to actually read the academic content I'm citing for the chart so that there won't be any misunderstanding. Also, mind you, it was Chaldean who created the chart. It's not original research. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:38 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

you didn't read my comment, did you? Your "references" are fine, albeit partly without direct relevance. It is the graphical presentation I object to, not your "sources". --dab (𒁳) 16:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, please enlighten me: WHY, do you object to the chart? If you can't give me a good reason, then you perhaps shouldn't remove it. Because this chart was first composed by Chaldean, and I subsequently added academic sources to it, in order to corroborate his chart just so that there wouldn't be an anti-nationalist Wikipedia warrior reverting it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:44 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Well, one question I've got is why anyone thinks this website is a reliable source. And why another one of the citations in "the chart" links to a youtube video instead of an academic paper. But the larger question is why the article is focusing so intently on ancient Assyria when it's supposed to be about the modern Assyrians. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That "YouTube" clip, is an excerpt from a documentary about modern Assyrians. The man talking and explaining, is Richard Nelson Frye, a very respected academic scholar, and it's an excerpt from his Assyria and Syria: Synonyms article. Hence, it's an academic source. The crystal link is just a source I found, perhaps it doesn't fulfil WP:RS. And the ancient Assyrians, well, it's part of our history. Dab doesn't like to acknowledge this, but we have a straight connection with the ancient Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:51 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

"WHY, do I object to the chart" -- see top of section. Feel free to ask for WP:3Os too (thanks Akhilleus). Problem is, most people won't be willing to be bothered with such pathetic questions of petty nationalist pride. dab (𒁳) 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to remove the chart, in spite of the fact that it is backed up by numerous independent scholars, then you had better make sure you actually have a reason to remove it, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:52 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

So dab, do you have any actual reason as to why you object this chart? Because if you don't, you should knock this off. It's getting real tired by now. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:24 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

can you read? I just told you, what are our sources for the relative width of the (green) Chaldean and (red) Aramaic positions of about 10% each, compared to the "mainstream" Assyrian one? What is our source that the period of 400 years 2400-2000 BC is of about equal importance in "Assyrian identity" as the ensuing period of 2300 years (Old Assyria over-represented by a factor of about 600%)? Completely glossing over the controversial "gap" of 600 years during Seleucid rule? We weren't born yesterday, Elias. These are cheap graphical manipulations used by every populist on the face of the earth. Problem: Wikipedia is not a populist publication. We can report on populism, but that would take notable populism, not some image cooked up by some private Assyrian crusader. --dab (𒁳) 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I can bring sources for that. For your information, Agha Petros, a Chaldean Catholic, was an Assyrian general during World War 1. Naum Faiq, a notable Assyrian nationalist, was Syriac Orthodox. We were a united people during the Assyrian Levies. We were united as Assyrians during Seyfo. We were united until the Assyrian diaspora effectively began increasing. As for the Seleucid rule etc., that's beside the point. This chart, is simply just trying to explain the Assyrian naming dispute, which began very recently; and I did provide sources for that above, showing that Syrian Orthodox Christians in the late 1890's and even into the first half of the 20th century, identified as Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:37 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

This chart, is simply just trying to explain the Assyrian naming dispute -- funny, isn't it, how your side of the dispute dominates the image to about 95% in solid blue, while the "wrong" side appears as a literal fringe, tiny chips of colour huddled to the image border. Have I pointed you to WP:NPOV yet? dab (𒁳) 18:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You obviously seem to be under the impression that those who believe they are 'pure' "Chaldeans" and "Aramaeans" amount to a major faction. Tell you what, they are a minority and exist in a few thousand numbers in Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, and the USA. Despite the fact that Chaldean Catholics are the majority of the Assyrian people, barely anyone has heard of "Chaldeans." Chaldeans and Aramaeans are pseudo-identities, used by some hardcore fanatics who are rejecting their own people because of some Bible verses of Aram and ancient Chaldea. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:08 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I am just saying your "sources" are silent on the question. How can you defend an edit like this? your edit summary is blatantly false. I did not remove a single reference, not even the unacademic ones. Yet you revert me with a "minor" edit as "vandalism of academic sources". You are showing the face of the blatant bad faith edit-warrior now, Elias. You can stand down, or face arbitration. dab (𒁳) 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, do you think I don't see how transparent you are? The edit you're pointing to,[19] was an alternate removal of the content from your two previous edits:[20][21] And you did it just to dodge a WP:3RR, very clever, but you should be banned by now for at least 24 hours for WP:3RR. Look, you can give me threats of arbitration, that's not scaring me. I realise that you have been an admin for over 3 years now, and that you probably have other admins who 'got your back' in case you need it, but when it all comes down to it, I am the one with the academic sources, and I have a lot of them. You have no single source, and all you're doing is your average every day obsession of cleaning Wikipedia articles from what you deem to be "nationalism." This is insane man, knock this off. As for the minor edit, my settings is by default all edits as minor. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:28 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

This chart, is simply just trying to explain the Assyrian naming dispute -- funny, isn't it, how your side of the dispute dominates the image to about 95% in solid blue, while the "wrong" side appears as a literal fringe - What is the matter with you? Have you gone so mad to the point where you don't even know what your saying? The chart is NOT our side of the dispute, but actual history of the identity among Assyrian people. The most simpliest fact of this subject of we been known as Syrian Christians throughout most of AD - and yet you don't even know that? That is the reason why "the blue line dominates" after AD. Seriously what creteria do you have to bring to the table to be even talking about this matter? Your ignorance has taken over you in case of this issue. Chaldean 19:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to be neutral here but Dab you are forming an alliance with Benne when the fact of the matter is that this isn't a team oriented encyclopedia. There are "Projects" and then there are groups of thugs who try to take things into their own hands through perversion. Sharru Kinnu III 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Benne, to be quite honest you are absolutely wrong about how you're going about business here. The fact of the matter is we have reffered to ourselves as Syrian in Syriac since the coming of Christendom. You seem to equate Aramean with Syrian but for once in your limited scope of perception did you even stutter to think that maybe even Assyrian and Aramean were synonymous yet you go through enormous lengthts to dispute anything remotely Assyrian. What gives? What is your agenda? Did not the Assyrians merge with Arameans? There are countless achademic sources for that and do Mexicans being Mestizo call themselves Indian or Spanish... NO, they are Mexican. Arameans and Assyrians = Syrians. The fact is that we are KNOWN as ASSYRIANS and not SYRIANS because of the country of SYRIA. Please keep your political agenda out of here. BTW official revised and over-analyzed census of our people in America uses Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean in the census. The Aramean seperatist movement hasn't taken foot in America thank God or the Universe for that. Sharru Kinnu III 20:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, barely no Syriac Orthodox in the states call themselves Aramaeans. Though there are a few, like for instance my cousin in Boston. He is however the only one in his family. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:03 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Dab's persistent vandalism

[22]So dab, are you going to stop vandalising this article? Because it's getting tired and it's quite obvious you're doing it not because of inaccurate facts, but because you don't like me. You have grave NPOV issues, and you have nothing to back up your vandalising of academic sources. You are edit-warring and you should be blocked. You have no actual reason to remove that chart. You're just doing it because of your own bias. You shouldn't be allowed to work any longer on Assyrian-related articles, because you're not here to improve them, but rather to delete content. It's also obvious that you're getting some weird satisfaction out of it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:15 14 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

as long as you continue calling my edits Wikipedia:Vandalism (which they aren't), this isn't even a debate. I neither "like" nor "dislike" you: to me, you are just a bunch of reverts in an article history. You keep stating I am "biased", which sounds rather hollow seeing you are the one plastering your user page with Assyrian patriotism. To me, this is just one among many articles I try to keep free from propaganda and spin. I have no strong feelings about the topic at all, which is rather the opposite of "bias". --dab (𒁳) 12:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

as long as you continue calling my edits Wikipedia:Vandalism (which they aren't), this isn't even a debate. — It is vandalism because you are not respecting academic sources, you are removing them, and you are not respecting your collaborators. You have not one single justifiable reason to delete that chart from this article, yet you're doing it without a reason, and then you start marauding me with insults and call me pathetic nationalist. Not only have you crossed the line of WP:CIVIL but you are edit-warring with me and Chaldean and you have actually crossed WP:3RR (though you did dodge it by removing only the chart here). Do you have any actual reason to remove this chart? Why are you removing it? Can you just answer this simple question? What is your reason to remove it? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:31 14 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

The more you continue you call content disputes vandalism, the closer you're heading to a disruption block. So please act professionally. El_C 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

El_C, Seeing that you are a Communist, freedom of speech may not be valuable to you, but you cannot give me threats of blocks when it's actually vandalism. He is removing sourced content, not because of inaccuracy or because he has other academic sources saying otherwise, but because he dislikes me. He has demonstrated very clearly that he dislikes me. I regard that as pure and simple vandalism of the article's content. And if you decide to block me because of expressing my opinion in a dispute, then you are clearly abusing your own power as an admin. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:32 14 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

See you in 24 hours, EliasAlucard. El_C 12:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I see this is Elias' fifth block in three months, not counting two revoked blocks due to borderline 3RR-(non-)violation. This is indeed getting silly, and I think I will seek WP:CSN (rather than arbitration) if this latest block fails to cool Elias' boots. --dab (𒁳) 12:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're taunting him. That's blatant as can possibly be. You know both of you are making this talk page very unpleasant. You do vandalise just look at the Aramaic history page. Why did you erase it? Did you even move the previous content to another page? 13:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs)

I am not taunting him. I did explain my points in all patience, several times over. All he did was illustrating his conviction that his patriotic sentiment is equivalent to unbiased TRUTH. It is hardly my fault if he is unable to listen. Aramaic history was a pov fork of History of the Assyrian people. I fixed it, it is now a proper disambiguation page. What is your question? --dab (𒁳) 13:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you ok? Is something troubling you? I should have asked those questions. I was asking about the Aramaic history article. Where is the bulk of that information you whiped out? POV according to who? Why are you making unilateral moves without any sort of consensus?Sharru Kinnu III 16:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And why haven't you replied to my questions? Chaldean 17:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to see to it that there's a policy against policy whoring [Dab] meaning that veiled vandalism under a guise of so-called "good editing" isn't tollerated. You can only hide behind rhetoric for so long. Sharru Kinnu III 17:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember to keep up with your lies before they get the best of you Dab. POV fork of History of the Assyrian people -nonsense and a blatant lie. Aramaic history is over a year older than the latter article. I've reported you to admin. Sharru Kinnu III 17:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sharru Kinnu III, you seem to be missing an important point: this is a content dispute. Content disputes are not vandalism; please read WP:VAND. I'm having difficulty understanding what you meant by referring to "policy whoring", but it certainly doesn't sound civil; nor does accusing other editors of lying. Please consider rephrasing. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing him of lying. He did lie. Look at the history of edits on the article. We're not here attacking HIM. We are attacking his abuse of articles. Sharru Kinnu III 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If everyone attacked every article THEY felt was POV then Wikipedia would be cest-pool of nonsense which in some cases it has become. Sharru Kinnu III 17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

He has proven that he doens't know what his talking about when it comes to this subject (as proven with the last thing I mentioned) yet he is having such a big influence on the page. Chaldean 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, if I am a "lying vandal", why don't you open a WP:RFC about me already, asking for input from people who are not stuck in nationalist ideology up to their ears? Then, go and open a WP:RFAR and see if the arbcom thinks you have a case. Alternatively, ask for action against me on WP:CSN. There are lots of ways I could and would be dealt with if your accusations had any merit. You and I know that they do not, and that you are simply trolling this page. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's begin anew

It's very nice to see how much Wikipedians like El_C value free speech. Anyway, dab, please explain to me, what your motives are for removing the chart? If you're not going to give any reasons, then you shouldn't remove it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:52 15 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I have given my reasons, repeatedly. You are just trying attrition tactics now. Address the points I raised, or drop the topic. --dab (𒁳) 12:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your "reasons" are what? I have given you numerous sources, yet you refuse to believe it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:23 16 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

believe what? Elias, go back and read what my concerns actually are about, and then address them, not something else. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend hours playing 'guess and find' what you're talking about. I have given extensive sources that we have identified as Assyrians and Syrians (Suroyo/Suraya). You are removing this chart, not because I'm wrong, but because you refuse to believe that this chart is honest. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:00 16 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Wow, now I see why I was away from this page for so long. Guys, you need to stop your squabbling. It's obvious that both of you are guilty of POV, so let me suggest a fair compromise: how about both of you cease from editing this article for a while, and let the people with intermediate views take over. I, personally, will not tolerate any sort of extremism on this page, regardless of which side of the see-saw you're sitting on. I don't really see any other option, does anybody else? --Šarukinu 18:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not about "extremism." Dab is trying to take over this article, and he's refusing to allow any else who disagrees with him, edit it. This is clearly WP:OWN. You think it's a coincidence that El_C locked the article within minutes after Dab removed the chart? Guess again. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:32 16 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN? WP:KETTLE. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, Dab is refusing to state his reason for removing this chart. He's just removing it because he thinks I have POV issues, when I actually don't. I have provided numerous sources for this chart, and I can provide more. It's a very valuable chart to explain our self-designation, it gives a very clear understanding of the development of how we have identified ourselves throughout the ages. It should not be removed. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:46 16 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Dab has stated his reasons for removing the chart above; either you haven't read them or refuse to acknowledge them. I concur with the removal of the chart, because I don't think the sources it cites support the graphical presentation. The material that you're trying to present in "the chart" would be much better explained in prose anyway; "the chart" is over-detailed and doesn't communicate much to people who aren't familiar with whatever dispute(s) Assyrians are having about their identity/ies. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Has the possibility that Dab is totally wrong on this, due to his anti-nationalistic bias, ever entered your mind? Of course not. Tell you what, I'll make you guys a deal: let Dab point out any error in the chart, and I will prove him wrong, by strictly citing academic sources. Academic sources, proving, from the fall of the Assyrian empire, into modern times, that we have identified as the way the chart presents. I don't care about what you "think." It's about what you know. If this chart is backed up by academic sources (more than the ones already in use), it should be used in this article. You can't just rule this chart out because you disagree with it without having any knowledge about the subject. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:44 16 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can see that this is going to be an amicable, reasonable discussion. Before we begin, let's note that one of the sources "the chart" cited was a link to crystalinks.com, which does not appear to be a reliable source. Otherwise, we've got two sources: the Parpola article in the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies and Frye in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies. (By the way, the reference formatting in this article is really confusing and non-standard.) Anyway, I've only had the opportunity to read the Parpola so far, but that article focuses on the neo-Assyrian period through the Roman period, with a very short treatment of Assyrian identity after that period; it doesn't provide support for the Akkadian or Islamic periods. Nor do I see where Parpola's article tells us that we can create a chart with a thin light blue area corresponding to "Assyrian" and a large dark blue area corresponding to "Syrian"; this is clearly meant to indicate some sort of proportion, but I don't see where the sources cited discuss this.

Let me reiterate that whatever "the chart" is supposed to be communicating would be better explained in ordinary text. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I will respond with a detailed message, it'll take me a few hours, I'm sort of busy right now. Hang on. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:32 16 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Europe and the ancient Assyrians

Biblical historians, naturally, trace the ancient Assyrians ultimately to Ashur, one of the sons of Shem, thus a grandson of Noah and among the survivors of the Great Flood who settled the southern coastal regions of the Euxine (Black) Sea. The ancient city of Ashur near the present day border between Syria and Iraq was probably built in tribute to the man. The ancient Assyrians spread far and wide, and did so quite fast. They were even believed to have reached regions in present day Italy and Germany and set up centres of civilisations there long before subsequent recorded settlements. Ancient German folk tradition has it that the first German city, called Tiutsch, from which the term Deutsch is probably descended, was built by an ancient Assyrian prince, possibly a son of Ashur. Tiush was in fact a title, meaning teacher in Assyrian, ascribed to Shem, who was a teacher to his sons as well as those of his brothers Ham and Japhet. Modern Europeans prefer to believe that Europeans are descended exclusively from the Japhetic line. However, ancient records state that the first Assyrian expedition to Europe was led by Shem himself, who was accompanied by 6 of his own sons and 2 of his brother Japhet's sons, thus suggesting a possible, or even probable, significant contribution from the Shemitic line, irregardless of the average modern European's belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.224.198 (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's great. The bible is not a historically accurate document. It's a book of philosophical thought interpreted in methods relative to peasants, farmers, hunters, etc... In other words: literary artwork. Sharru Kinnu III 00:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

nothing of the above is even in the Bible of course. fwiiw, the Bible (properly: Nevi'im and Ketuvim), besides being "literary artwork", is our main source for the history of 8th to 5th century BC Judea. dab (𒁳) 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes if you're Jewish, regardless of which it still has no relevance. Moses NEVER existed and the "Israelites" were never enlsaved by the Egyptians. There IS NO evidence of this. Religious texts or references in articles should have notes stating that according to this or that popular belief yada yada yada. They are NOT however concrete facts and NEVER will be due to the fact that Historians time and time again have PROVEN the bible [and the Koran] is full of shit. Sharru Kinnu III 16:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this is really offtopic. If you must fight, at least talk about stuff that's related to this article. (And geez, I thought this article was about modern Assyrians, so why is so much of this talk page about ancient history?) --Akhilleus (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Because these people like to argue ancient history in which the bible isn't even that. It's skewed illogical and irrational history according to delusional "Jews" that saw some mystical creature called Yahweh or Elohim that was really their psychotic subconcious telling them to complete ludicrous tasks like kill their first born. Sharru Kinnu III 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

my point is, pay attention first, rant later. the historical parts of the Bible are Kings and Chronicles, not the Tanakh. Your rant about Moses concerns the Tanakh exclusively. I know this is offtopic, but this talkpage practically consists of this type of kneejerk hysteria. Can you please switch on your brain before posting? even if it is an article about your ethnicity, and even if you cannot stop think of being "ethnic" all day long? thanks. --dab (𒁳) 16:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a knee-jerk reaction. None of the bible can be considered historically accurate because it is nothing but a hysterical ranting. I'm not arguing with you anyway but with the moronic troll that posted the main topic. Sharru Kinnu III 16:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case "kneejerk hysteria" does seem like an apt description. Why don't we remove this thread from the talk page, since it's offtopic? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's trolls like this that cause mass hysteria spreading false beliefs about people. Leave this as an example of what not to source in an article. Sharru Kinnu III 17:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

this may be difficult to come to terms with, but the "hysteria" discussed by Akhilleus an d me is all yours. --dab (𒁳) 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)