Talk:Assyrian people

Archives
Archive 1 (122 K, Jul '03 - Feb '06) Archive 2 (156 K, Feb '06 - Aug '06} Archive 3 (122 K, Aug '06 - Nov '06) Archive 4 (126 K, Nov '06 - Aug '07) Archive 5 (187 K, Aug '07) Archive 6 (159 K, Aug '07 - Oct '07) Archive 7 (190 K, Oct '07 - Apr '08) Archive 8

Image copyright problem with Image:Assyrian Church of the East Symbol.JPG

The image Image:Assyrian Church of the East Symbol.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Chaldean.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Population numbers

The 3.3-4.3 million is beyond from reality. Lets discuss this numbers. The TriZ (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, whenever I tried to change it previously, User Dab kept on reverting it. This was when he had a stranghold in the article. Perhaps we can start improving the article and reflecting reality more. Chaldean (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian homeland

Iraq+ Syria ca. 0.5-2.5 million [4] 
Iran 80,000 [3] 
Turkey 5,000 [5] 

Assyrian diaspora

United States 83,000 [6] 
Sweden 80,000 [7] 
Jordan 77,000 [8][9] 
Australia 24,000 [10] 
Germany 23,000[citation needed]  
France 15,000 [11] 
Russia 14,000 [12] 
Canada 7,000 [13] 
Armenia 3,409 [14] 

At first, the CIA ref concering the population in Iraq (and Syria?), doesn't tell me much? "Ethnic groups: Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian, or other 5%". Could be anything basically, we can assume there are more Turkomans then Assyrians since, "This entry provides an ordered listing of ethnic groups starting with the largest and normally includes the percent of total population.". Therefore there cant be more than 2,5% of the population and probably less, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The TriZ (talk • contribs) 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Its difficult to know the exact numbers for Iraq and Syria, since half of Iraqi Assyrians if not more have left Iraq for Syria as refugees. But the current number that is being put up in news media is 800,000 for Iraq (which I think is still high.) Chaldean (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there aren't 80,000 in Sweden. Around 20,000 is more accurate. I also doubt the 23,000 in Germany and the 15,000 in France (the source need an update because the page doesn't exist anymore). The total number of 3,3 - 4 million should be more like 1,2-2 million, all depending on the Iraq+Syria numbers (the maximum, 2,5 million sounds way to high). The TriZ (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your right about Sweden, Germany, and France. Its unfortunate Western European countries don't do ethnic census like the US, Canada, and Australia, so its difficult to get any real numbers. the 0.5-2.5 number was the number User dab came up with. Perhpas we should ask him how he got that number. Chaldean (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the best thing is to write 1,5-2 mil in pop box. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So, can we agree to change it to 1.5-2 million? And the Iraq+Syria numbers to 0.5-1 million? The TriZ (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Add the numbers - its higher then 1.5 million. Chaldean (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the numbers together, apart from Iraq+Syria, the numbers are 411 409. And they are probably to high, but let's not get in to that. If we then say there are ca. 0.5-1 million Iraq+Syria, the total numbers will then be ca. 0.9-1.3 million. Right now, the numbers are ca. 0.5-2.5 in Iraq+Syria, which is if course to high no doubt, but still, the total would be ca. 0.9-2.9 million, and not ca. 3.3-4.3 million. The TriZ (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If we then say there are ca. 0.5-1 million Iraq+Syria - How about we don't say that because that is not what the sources say? You still seem to not know what Wikipedia is. How you thought about applying to aramnahrain.org and do your work their? Chaldean (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The source doesn't say 0.5-2.5 million either, how about you getting your facts correct? The TriZ (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't know what this article is about; its about the whole Syriac-speaking middle eastern people as a whole. That is all Middle Eastern members of the ACOE, Chaldean Catholic, and both Syriac churches. Why is this article called Assyrian people? Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you don't like it, then take it up with somebody else, because due to me knowing your not hear to create Wikipedic articles, I'm not willing to teach you what Wikipedia is. Chaldean (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously your suffering from some kind of superior-complex. But fortunatetly your not ruling wikipedia. And nowadays, we have two articles, Aramean-Syriac people and Assyrian people. If that doesn't suit you, then please, keep it for yourself. And the numbers will change, cause they are incorrect, the question is whats the closest number to reality. The TriZ (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if your changing the number of Assyrians in Iraq to 1.3 million (according to that site), then you must use the same source for the other countries to. Lebanon 5,000, Iran 10,000, Iraq 1,300,000, Syria 75,000, Turkey 5,000. This is what's called manipulating with sources and spreading propaganda [1]. And btw, no, that source for me doesn't seem to be reliable. The TriZ (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to do what this page says in the top; take a deep breath and relax. You did not call the source baised when you used it for the Syriac people page. The specific source got it right on Iraq, but was not consistant with the rest. That does not matter with what is Wikipedia's policy; this page right here is a united page, that is all Syriac-speaking middel easterners. To suggest their are only 75 K, but then go to another Wikipedia article and state a sect of the larger portion has 750K. is inaccurate. Chaldean (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is not a united page, it is only about those whom refer to themselfs as Assyrian. And I have never used any sources, we're discussing this page now, not any other. The numbers are far from accurate, and they need to be adjusted. The TriZ (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That source is used in the Syriac people. Anyways, you calling it not reliable and giving no reason doesn't do much. And this is a page of all Syriac-speaking Middle Easterners. Take a look at the archives. And also, in the top of the page, it states Āshūrāyē /Sūrāyē - that is all people that call themselves Suraya (like I do since I'm chaldean) or Suroyo (Syriacs) or any other form of that word, since its one word with different ways of saying it. Chaldean (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody come across this yet? ...

The Assyrians are a non-Arab, Semitic, and Christian people whose ancestral homeland includes parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. They constitute some 3 to 5 percent of the Iraqi population although some estimates range up to 10 percent. The most off-cited statistic is that there are 1.5 million Assyrians in Iraq with population centers in Baghdad, Mosul, and villages in northwest Iraq.

Reference:
Lewis, J.E. (2003). Iraqi Assyrians: Barometer of Pluralism. Middle East Quarterly, 10(3), 49-56

Note, however, that this journal article was written in 2003, before the onset of the invasion of Iraq. Up until this time, 5% was the most reliable and most commonly cited population estimate of the Assyrians in Iraq. Also note, that this author has cited such sources as Zinda Magazine (www.zindamagazine.com) and AINA (www.aina.org)... these are two sources which cannot be entirely trusted. However, this article was published in a reliable journal.--Šarukinu (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Šarukinu (talk • contribs)

Why do you guys keep playing around with this. The creators of this page should not listen to those who have an anti-assyrian agenda because they will try their hardest to make Wikipedia articles how they want it to be. I mean the 1.4 million assyrian population sources are ridiculous ... source [2] says that there is 1.4 million population only in the 5 countries listed, and it says there are extra 400 000 in other countries, which makes the population (according to that source 1.8 million) also it doesn't give us more detail to the other 400 000 in other countries, to me that is an unreliable source. Source [3] is not pertaining to the assyrian people its only pertaining to the Assyrian Language. There are some in India who speak the fluent Assyrian yet they are not Assyrian, and there are others who are Ethnic Assyrians but don't speak Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and speak other languages like arabic, Syriac, Chaldean, English etc. That source is also unreliable. Please find better sources on the Assyrian population. What I find amusing is that the person who changed it is willing to use sources [2] for the actual population but is not willing to use it for the 1.5 million Assyrians who are supposedly living in Iraq (according to the source) ... you can't pick and choose what you want to be on there. Using the Sources which are provided the population of Assyrians in Iraq should then be 1.27 million (750 000 nestorians, 420 000 Chaldean Catholics, and 100 000 Syrian Catholics). Once again you are not suppose to pick and choose which of the different sections you want to use in the sources to bring your point across. Malik Danno (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have solved the Assyrian demographics issue!! As i stated above the current sources used are very unreliable and the person who made them picked and chose which 'facts' he/she wanted to post. There are MUCH more reliable than those sources currently being used. I Suggest we use the sources provided in Unrepresented Nations and People's Organization http://www.unpo.org/content/view/7859/93/ It states that: "Population

The total Assyrian population, including the Diaspora, is estimated at 3.3 million, with the majority living in the former Mesopotamia region, which is the Assyrian ancestral homeland covering northern Iraq, northern Iran, south-eastern Turkey and southern Syria. Outside of the Middle East, approximately 93,000 live in Europe, 300,000 in the U.S. and Canada, 64,000 in Armenia, Georgia and Russia, 33,000 in Australia and New Zealand and 150,000 in other countries." Malik Danno (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you solved it, you're a genius! Seriously, don't be so naive and look at your sources with a critical eye. For example the current numbers in USA and Canada says 83,000 in the US and 7,000 in Canada and these numbers are including Syriacs and Chaldeans, and the source is the official census! So where is the 300,000? Obviously that article is written by some Assyrian nationalist, cause there aren't any +2,5 million Assyrians in the Middle East. In Syria mostly call themselves Syriacs and identify with an Aramean identity, just like in Turkey and Lebanon. In Iraq most of the people identify with an Assyrian identity but also some with a Chaldean identity. This is general knowledge. Many of the sources are biased or are including the total population, so if course the discussion is open for everyone to contribute with sources and knowledge so the article can be improved. Because this is what a wikipedia article is, a process. The TriZ (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

just as you say it has been written by Assyrian nationalists i can easily say that other sources that are used are by people who are anti-Assyrian ... Also for world organizations don't just take sources from just anyone and they would so overthrow any claims done by nationalists ... that claim is gone. Secondly you clearly have an anti-Assyrian agenda and you try to undermine Assyrians by any means possible ... so you saying that you don't believe that there are more than 2.5 million Assyrian is baseless cause of your anti-Assyrian tendencies, You yourself have admitted that you are a "aramaen nationalist" many of the if not all have an anti-Assyrian agenda so your claims are worth nothing. Since you could not provide me with better sources and/or better alternatives I have changed the Assyrian population from 1.4 million to 3.3 million, and Assyrian Iraq population to 1.5 million using the exact same source currently being used. Until there is a more credible source used for the Assyrian Iraqi population it will stay 1.5 million.

In Syria mostly call themselves Syriacs and identify with an Aramean identity, just like in Turkey and Lebanon. If you don't source this then it is nothing but your POV

thank-you Malik Danno (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I said that I'm an Aramean nationalist, though I believe it is obvious which name I identify with. The same goes for you. Don't you have an Assyrian agenda here in wikipedia? My claims are worth nothing, but yours are? Anyway, I'll have a watch at your sources. But again, you should really re-read what Helikophis said at the the topic below.

Ok, source 3 (adherents) are using source 2 (UNPO) as their source, so source 3 (adherents) is unnecessary and should be removed. UNPO haven't provided much details of how they produced their numbers, and so how reliable does that make the source? This is what they say,

"People: Population

The total Assyrian population, including the Diaspora, is estimated at 3.3 million, with the majority living in the former Mesopotamia region, which is the Assyrian ancestral homeland covering northern Iraq, northern Iran, south-eastern Turkey and southern Syria. Outside of the Middle East, approximately 93,000 live in Europe, 300,000 in the U.S. and Canada, 64,000 in Armenia, Georgia and Russia, 33,000 in Australia and New Zealand and 150,000 in other countries."

We already have concluded that they estimate the U.S. and Canada numbers way wrong. The Armenian official census says 3,409, Russian census 14,000 and Georgian census 3,300. The total 64,000 is again extremly overestimated. I also doubt the 93,000 in Europe and 150,000 in other countries. So if adding the UNPO numbers excluding the Middle East, the sum is 640,000. That makes the Middle East numbers to 2,660,000. Does that sound reliable?

Furthermore, you are using i-cias as a source, and to me it can't be taken as reliable source. But your using it for the Iraqi numbers but not for the total population, even though there are other, more reliable sources for the Iraqi population. Why? The TriZ (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No I am not an Assyrian nationalist because I know the true meaning of nationalism and its negative connotations. Just as you have disproved Adherents source in this page I will make the same claim in Syriac-Aramaen page, but the only difference being Adherents sources a world organization for the Assyrian population while for Syriacs-Aramaen page if first of all doesn't source the "ethnicity" rather it sources the members of the Syriac Church ... and with a bias source.

UNPO is much much much more reliable than the source previously used ... If you have a better source then provide them for me ... You cannot just say what you think and not think and make them facts ... provide me with sources.

Also, even though census' seem reliable they are not at all. I'll use these examples. I live in Canada where the census has only 7000 Assyrians. In just my city (Hamilton) I can easily assume there are 4000-5000 Assyrians. There is a Church of the East parish, Chaldean Catholic Church (90% of Chaldeans call themselves Assyrians in Canada), Ancient Church of the East and a Syriac Orthodox Church ... now this is just in one city in Canada. There are more cities which have strong Assyrian populations such as London, Mississauga, Windsor etc...... In Toronto alone I can assume there are 7000 Assyrians ... you can ask any Assyrians in Canada to hear what they have to say. The reason for this discrepancy is that MANY don't choose to fill out the census. In my family (7 members) we didn't fill out the census and many of my friends said that their families didn't fill out census' as well. Many are first generation Immigrants and there is a trend to avoid filling out census in that case. Also in the 2000 USA census we see that there are only 7121 Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs in Chicago, This is clearly not true even though it is a census ... There is a much higher Assyrian population in Chicago http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US1714000&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP13&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U. Also in the Michigan census it did not even mention any Assyrian or even Chaldean population (there is an overwhelming Chaldean population in Michigan) 90% of liquor stores are owned by Chaldeans. In these cases the census' are not reliable (even though they are government sourced).

Also the Syriac-Aramean page has no sources whatsoever in their population demographics ... If you really want to turn this into a source war then I'll be more than glad to be the result in eliminating the population section of the Syriac-Aramaen template.

P.S. you still haven't given me a source on In Syria mostly call themselves Syriacs and identify with an Aramean identity, just like in Turkey and Lebanon. - Malik Danno (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

lol, i've gotta give you that you atleast discuss unlike the other recent Assyrian nationalist warriors whom are ranting around. But your taken this completly wrong, you wanted to discuss numbers, and now I'm doing it with you in a way to improve the reliability and the quality. I'm not here to start a "source war". UNPO figures are not especially reliable, just like most other sites. I believe census are still more reliable than any other sources. And no, I haven't provide sources for that statement cause sources in general are hard to find in this subject. I've found this website, [2] under history in the english version -> [3], belonging to the Syriac community in Istanbul (which is the city most Syriacs in Turkey live). For Syria I haven't looked for sources, but then I'm guessing they are written in arabic if there are any (which I don't read).

And again, I'm not saying this is fact and this is not. I'm just asking, do you believe that 2,666,000 Assyrians in the Middle East is a cloesly accurate figure? The TriZ (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To tell you the truth TriZ yes I do believe that. Here is the problem. My definition of Assyrians includes members of the Church of the East (Ancient & Assyrian) Chaldean Catholic Church and Syriac Churches (Orthodox and Catholic). Now this figure would agree with the population numbers seen in the Syriac-Aramaean page. This is the problem our definitions of who constitutes an Assyrian is different. Now all the sources below I and Gab-ril have provided proves that Syriacs are known in the international world as Assyrians so this population figure represents that as well. - Malik Danno (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-designation

I removed the beginning paragraph in the Self-designation section, as it makes ignorant POV claims. If it is to remain in the article, it needs some re-wording, because it's somewhat derogatory and ignorant.

For example: "All of these identities are indebted to the discovery of ancient Babylonia and Assyria and the decipherment of cuneiform that took place during 19th century , and the rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire that occurred during the same period.

This is contradicted by the fact that, although somewhat scarce and dispersed across time, references to Assyrian and Aramaean identities have been attested to over the past 2,000 years. Also, the claims of this paragraph contradict the rest of the section, which suggests continuity of the Assyrian identity from ancient times to present day. WestAssyrian reverted my edits, claiming that this paragraph simply lists the different Assyrian denominations. If that were true, there would be no problem. However, this paragraph makes the suggestion that the Assyrian identities were "made-up", owing only to the decipherment of cuneiform and the efforts of Assyriology.
It is fair to suggest that the modern revival of the various Assyrian identities were influenced by Assyriology and the "rise of nationalism under the Ottoman empire", however that is already addressed in the Names of Syriac Christians article. I would like to see others' opinions on this matter. Šarukinu (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, "There are many of the Western Syriacs (Sūryāyē) which consider themselves as Western Assyrians (Āṯūrāyē) or Assyrians-Syriacs (Āṯūrāyē-Sūryāyē) other consider themselves as Syriacs (Sūryāyē) or Aramean-Syriac (Ārāmayē-Sūryāyē)"

I don't see the point of this, again, this is addressed (or should be) in Names of Syriac Christians. And also, Assyrians-Syriacs? The writer just came up with that or what? Anyway, I agree with what you are writing Šarukinu, there is no need to re-add that paragraph. The TriZ (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that last bit should also be removed. --Šarukinu (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Its ok to summarize what point of view from both Assyrians and Syriacs in this page and the Syriac people page. The single sentence Triz pointed out is only summary of the Assyrian's view. In the Syriac Identity page, we can be more detailed about the subject. Chaldean (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the average layperson, who doesn't have a clue about the Assyrian people, is going to get confused with all these terms we're using. Also, with respect to "Suryaye": it is simply a synonym of "Suraye", which is the term that the majority of Assyrians use to refer to their ethnicity in the Assyrian language. However, when you ask them to translate it into English, they will most often tell you Suraya means Assyrian. Thirdly, the phrase that Triz pointed out starts off with "Western Syriacs" - who exactly does that refer to? Those who Assyrians call "Western Assyrians" or the Western branch of members of the Syriac Orthodox Church? It needs to be more specific, and it needs to fit into the section smoothly, not just be tossed at the end. --Šarukinu (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all I am a Suryoyo and connect my heritage with Assuroyo, and when saying west Syriacs one refers to west Assyrians. Second, we need to merge all of these articles: Assyrian people, Chaldean people and Syriac people into one article and there we can present the name dispute. We can not continue like this, it is embarrassing and will only weaken us even more.--Yohanun (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs)

I think that should be put in the first sentence of the page. This is placed on many news agencies around the world and is commonly accepted (xcept for TriZ). Without it, it would confuse a lot of people who do not associate Chaldeans and Syriacs with the Assyrian ethnicity Malik Danno (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is in the "Demographics" section of the article.--Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That issue is alreaddy discussed.Since Assyrians not can be known as Syriacs, because of a large group of the syriacs consider them selfs arameans, so cant we write Assyrians are also known as syriacs. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

AramaenSyriac the problem with that is that the international community does not recognize what you propose. If you check out various news agencies you will realize that syriacs and chaldeans are identified with the ethnicity of the Assyrians. Assyrian is an ethnicity which Syriac is the language of the Assyrian peoples. Also, only until 1950s, it has become known as a Christian denomination of the Syriac Orthodox Church and they Syriac Catholic Church. While Assyrian is maintained as an ethnicity with various religious affiliations. Malik Danno (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you check out various news agencies you will realize that syriacs and chaldeans are identified with the ethnicity of the Assyrians... You mean news agencies such as esna? I really cant take you seriously now. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I still see no sources, Malik. The TriZ (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My words on this page have been few, but beacuse they do not speak as much nonesense as those who frequently rant in this page - I am addressing those fools who wish to destroy the Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs/Arameans or whatever blasted name they choose to divide themselves by. You are Christians, you are all speaking Aramaic, you all have genetic similarities, you are all one people, and unless you accept unity and choose a name (I don't care if you call urselves Summerians, Philistines, Amelkites or Donkeyites) that you are all able to unify under, you will all perish as fools into history. And with this comment I leave this page, my duty to help my fellow country has been fulfilled, since if you are my country men than you deserve little extra help without the reform I suggest. Gabr-el 01:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Khayet Khon ... thats all i want, for my people (no matter what religious denomination) to be united!

The TriZ and AramaenSyriac are you being serious ... I have provided you with many sources in our past debates and you never seem to be happy with any of them. I have many reliable sources but i will not share them with you because you will over look them and toss them out as if they are nothing. Before I post them i want you to answer me these.

1- of the following which are reliable to you: CNN, BBC, CBC, AINA, AsiaNews, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today

2- How many sources from any of the sources above who you agree with as being reliable do you need, 1,2, 4,6,10,100....

3- If I do provide you with sources what will you do after ... will you just arrogantly continue debating, will you accept it, will you stop spreading lies, will you leave wikipedia ... what will you do (if you're so sure that i don't have sources then you have nothing to lose)?

I will not post my sources until you answer me those easy questions Thanx for your time Malik Danno (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to answer anything, if you have anything new, you are free to bring it to the table. Different writers write different things, I don't see what your trying to prove here? You honestly believe there aren't newsagency that calls the group for Syriacs? Didn't you also say that more than 90% calls themselves Assyrian to? Please, I could need a good laugh, but you're just to much.

Gabriel my friend, I respect you, but our people will never unite under one name and it is just better to accept this. Furthermore, this conflict, especially in Europe, isn't about the entire group, there are people inside our people that believes that the Western Syriacs are one thing, and the Eastern another. The TriZ (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what your trying to prove here? well you said for me to provide reliable sources ...

but don't worry your answer is totally what i expected from you :D Malik Danno (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, sources for your other claims. Well, sources for all your claims cause most of what you say is just crap. Like that 90% of the population call themselves Assyrian. The TriZ (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

its funny that you asked me to provide you with sources ... then you back down from your claim, how come? So do you want the sources that prove your point wrong or not? Second of all I never said that 90% of the people call themselves assyrian as if it was a fact, i said that it was an assumption (sorry I thought I was speaking to a person able to comprehend basics of the english language, but i guess you don't know what "assumption" means). So again if you want me to provide you with sources answer those questions, if not then keep changing the subject (which is what you are very good at)

P.S. I already know what your answer is going to be. Malik Danno (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please folks, let's be civil. It does no one any good to go through endless polemics and name-calling. This is a collaborative project. In order to be successful we need to respect one another and work in good faith, and accept that there may be differences of opinion. I am sure that the disputants agree more than they realize. Let's try to focus on the commonalities, and to stick to facts which are verifiably published in reliable sources. Personally, I do not believe that newspapers and mass periodicals, especially in the United States, qualify as reliable sources, but again this is my opinion and you may disagree. I am not trying to target anyone in particular here, but it does no good to tantalize us with "sources" but refuse to provide reference to them. Don't hoard your information: share it! Remember that we are working together here! Please also remember that although this is a topic that may (or may not) be very important to your personal identity, we should not allow nationalism or ethnic or religious pride to cloud our judgement or colour our work. As tempting as it may be to include our personal experiences and feelings about a topic, they are not appropriate to the work at hand. If an editor feels that he or she has to express these things, it may be appropriate to stop editing Wikipedia and try setting up a personal web log. We'll make a better encyclopedia by being good to each other than by bickering!

Thank you, Helikophis (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Helikophis I am on the exact same level with you. I want us to solve these problems through co-operation, but it has to be done by both sides. The Assyrian related pages on Wikipedia have become nothing but jokes because we see some users who abuse the Wikipedia system to fit their POV. Throughout all the discussion boards you see a trend which is very anti-Assyrian and many assyrians are willing to listen to the other side, while when questions are raised about the page on Syriac-Aramaen people then nothing is resolved because TriZ is against any type of co-operation. An example is over the population debate ... In the Syriac-Aramaen people page he supports the 4-5 million population from the Adherents.com website as a source (even though on the website it also states 120 000) and he bashes any attempt to use another source. However according to Adherents (the same source he used for the Syriac-Aramaen page) the Assyrian population is 3.3 million http://adherents.com/Na/Na_41.html#302 and he is totally against that. That in my eyes isn't co-operation! Also according to UNPO (Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization) there are also 3.3 million people http://www.unpo.org/content/view/7859/93/.

Helikophis the reason I am so upset is because there is a lot of double standards being witnessed on many Assyrian Wikipedia Pages!

Once again I will say I will not provide the reliable sources until TriZ answers the questions, because it has happen before that he just shrugs the most reliable sources away and uses very unreliable sources which do nothing but meat his standards. eg. http://i-cias.com/e.o/assyrian_p.htm

If everyone is willing to stop this double standard which is clearly going on, and If everyone is willing to listen to the other then that is when Assyrian pages on Wikipedia will stop being a joke! Malik Danno (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I believe I've never changed any numbers at all in this article neither in the Aramean-Syriac people article. So whos being double standard here? Oh, and I've never backed off from my claims, you should read what I wrote again. I wanted to see sources for your other claims. And again, read what Helikophis wrote, if you have sources that can bring something new to this conflict, please provide them, if not, then don't even mention them. And about the numbers, the Aramean-Syriac people numbers may be a bit overestimated but until more reliable sources are provided they will remain, and they are far more accurate to reality than 3.3 mln for the "Assyrian population". The TriZ (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

first of all I never said u changed it I said that you supported it ... again please read exactly what I say and don't put words in my mouth

Do you even hear yourself speaking?? I mean you are saying that 4-5 million is an over-exaggeration yet you are willing to keep the source from Adherents, But when we are trying to use the same source for the Assyrian population and you say its far from accurate! You are saying that http://i-cias.com/e.o/assyrian_p.htm is more of a reliable source than the exact same source that is used and that you defend on the Syriac-Aramaen page ... to me that is nothing but double standard!! And are you willing to tell me that http://i-cias.com/e.o/assyrian_p.htm is more of a reliable source is more of a reliable source than UNPO (unrepresented nations and peoples organization) http://www.unpo.org/content/view/7859/93/ which is u world organization. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! so i provided a much much much much more reliable source (UNPO) and the same source which is used in the Syriac-Aramean people (Adherents.com) http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_41.html#302. So having said that ... if the Assyrian population of Wikipedia doesn't change than we are able to say that Assyrian Population is clearly POV and is nothing but double standard.

Also about the sources ... you asked me to provide sources of news agencies that say that Chaldeans and Syriacs are mentioned as Assyrian. I'm telling everyone this now. After I post the sources I am going to change the first line of this page to Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs) Malik Danno (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you even seen the Aramean-Syriac people article? It says 3-4 mln. And am I putting words in your mouth? Are you for real? This is what I've written concerning the numbers about the Aramean-Syriac people population,

"I think one should find another source than i-cias.com, for various reasons (e.g. 700k in the Middle East doesn't sound accurate, nor the "2.6 million in other countries"). Untill then, lets keep the current numbers until a more reliable source can be provided."

How about you stop lying? How about you start being constructive? How about you getting to a point? What are you trying to achieve here? Spreading your Assyrian propaganda? I'm sorry, me and the rest of the members in Wikipedia won't allow it. The TriZ (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ok you have once again failed to stay on topic and discuss what I have previously written about, so this is what is going to happen. I will change the first sentence of this page to "The Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs) are an ethnic group whose origins lie...." and the sources I will use are the following:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7156590.stm - An article from BBC News which states that Syriacs are Assyrian

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7307192.stm - BBC article which states that Syriacs are Assyrian

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3770907.stm - BBC articleWhich states that adherents to the Syriac Orthodox Church and Chaldean Catholic Church are Assyrian

http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/arsenault/20070914.html - CBC article which talks about Syriac Orthodix community as Assyrians

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/world/middleeast/26christians.html?scp=7&sq=assyrian&st=cse - A New York Times article which states that Chaldean Church is the largest religious denomination of the Assyrians

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-04-05-iraq-saturday_n.htm - USA today article which states that Father Youssef Adel (RIP) who was a priest of the Syriac Orthodox Church is Assyrian

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-02-03-kirkuk-bombings_x.htm - USA Today article which says Chaldeans are Assyrians

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-04-06-kidnapped-students_n.htm - USA Today article which states that Father Youssef Adel (RIP) was Assyrian

http://www.unpo.org/content/view/7859/93/ - Page on Assyrians on UNPO (unrepresented nations and peoples organization) which states Syriac churches and Chaldean church are denominations of Assyrian people

I have provided you with all those sources ... Now I will wait for a response before I Change the first line to what i have stated earlier. If you're response is irrelevant to what i have just said then I will just change it anyways.

Now to discuss the population issue

http://i-cias.com/e.o/assyrian_p.htm - this source which is currently used is unreliable and the number on the page is incorrect as well ... the source says there are 1.4 million in the 'assyrian homeland' and says 400 000 elsewhere in the world, while in this page assyrians are 1.4 million all over the world. Also The source is used for the 1.4 million population but not used for the 1.5 million Iraqi Assyrian population ... that is double standard

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=aii - this is also an unreliable source but it still proves my point that its not 1.4 million assyrians. This source says the "Ethnic population: 4,250,000 (1994)" which is much more than 1.4 million! Even though it disproves the current figure being used I still think it's unreliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Danno (talk • contribs) 17:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_41.html#302 - Adherents.com says there are 3.3 million assyrians across the world and this source is also used on the Syriac-Aramaen page so if it is used their then it has the same credibility to be used on the Assyrian page

http://www.unpo.org/content/view/7859/93/ - UNPO (unrepresented nations and peoples organization) is a world organization!!! This source is much much much more creible than http://i-cias.com/e.o/assyrian_p.htm which is currently being used for the world population. UNPO (and Adherents) states that the Assyrian population is 3.3 million

Also according to source [4] of the page http://i-cias.com/e.o/iraq_4.htm Assyrians are 1.3 million in Iraq. The number 750 000 is only Nestorians (which is a christian denomination NOT AN ETHNIC GROUP), but when you scroll down you will see in the source being used that (titled under Ethnic Groups) that Assyrians are 1.3 million. This is the source currently used, I am going to assume this was a mistake and not done on purpose.

Having said that I will wait for a response, If the response is not credible or about anything related to what I just wrote (which is what always happens) then I will change the Assyrian population from 1.4 million to 3.3 million. Also using the same source being used for Assyrian Iraqi population [4] I will change the population to 1.3 million until someone provides a more reliable source.

thank-you for your time Malik Danno (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So that was the secret super sources? Well, they're basically useless. Sorry. They're not saying anything and they for sure can not be used a source. I can provide you with hundreds of those articles if I had the time and energy, just google it and you'll find more than you can read. I found this in a second for example, [4].

And if you wanna discuss the numbers, there is a topic about the population numbers above, I'm sure if not me, someone else are willing to discuss the numbers with you but take it in the right place. The TriZ (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Malik Danno. I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, but as you have asked me, I will. I have looked over your sources, and I am sorry but I cannot agree with what you are saying. First, I generally do not consider news articles to be very reliable sources, especially on complex issues of this sort. All too often journalists know nothing about their subject and are not very concerned with getting the details right. What they want is a story, not reliable facts. Second, even if the newspaper articles were all correct, they simply do not say what you are claiming they do. I believe you are misreading them. Take a little time and look at them more closely. I do not feel the need to explain in detail what each of them actually says. Yes, they include the word Assyrian in association with Chaldean or Syriac. None of the articles are in fact asserting that these groups are identical. Yes, sometimes Assyrians are called Syriacs. This _does not mean_ that Syriacs and Assyrians are the same. They do speak related languages, have very similar English names, and are sometimes called by the same names. Perhaps this justifies putting (also called ...) in the article title, however I do not believe that it does. This would be misleading, and seem to suggest that they are one and the same group. They are related by language, religion, and history, and are already sometimes mistaken for one another, and I feel that that change would only add to the confusion.

As for the question of numbers, I do not feel that this is very important to the article. It may be personally very important to some Assyrians, and I apologize if this offends you. We are talking about a very small, historically-overlooked ethnic group whose homeland is in a country which has been in chaos and civil war for almost five years, and which was isolated for decades before that. I do not believe that there is _any_ reliable figure on the current Assyrian population. It is notoriously difficult to provide figures for ethnic populations in any circumstances, especially diaspora populations, and under the extremely confused conditions, all we can do is take a "best guess" and move on. Personally, I am inclined to use the Ethnologue figures. I think that it is better to overestimate than underestimate. But I understand Ethnologue is not generally considered a "reliable source" on Wikipedia. None of the other sources you provided are particularly reliable either. For instance, none of them provide details of how they produced those figures. This is a very important factor in reliability for this kind of issue. So what we have is a situation where we can pick between several, generally unreliable figures. Pick on, and move on. Again, I would use a larger number, but if this is going to cause problems for people, I would not fight for it, as I simply do not believe it is of major significance to this article. Someday maybe we will have good numbers, and then they can be included.

Again, I apologize if I have offended anyone. Let's put our energy into more constructive tasks.

Thank you,Helikophis (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The TriZ ... I provided with world renowned news sources and your response has been to overlook all of them and give a Turkish source (which are known for not representing Turkish minorities fairly) and also your source sound much more like an editorial rather than an actual news report.

Helikophis there's no need to apologize, its a discussion and that's how we will solve this discrepancy. With all do respect Helikophis I understand your point, but I am pretty sure that you have misunderstood the entire meaning of this discussion. In this discussion I'm not trying to prove that Syriacs and Chaldeans are Assyrians ... my point in this discussion is to show that Chaldeans and Syriacs are known as Assyrians (there is a difference). I agree with you about the news reporters etc. But if I was trying to prove that Syriacs and Chaldeans are Assyrian then I wouldn't be able to refute your, however my point again is to show that Chaldeans and Syriacs are known as Assyrians. Using news reports is the best way to show that because majority of the world gets their news from news sources ... given that and having provided all those sources we are safe to say that in fact those news reports do Syriacs and Chaldeans are known as Assyrians. It sounds confusing but I hope that you know what I mean.

That is why I want to change it to Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs) not "Chaldeans are Syriacs are Assyrian"

I will wait for a response again before I change anything

thank-you Malik Danno (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-read what Helikophis wrote. This whole issue has already been discussed, check the archieves. The TriZ (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Chaldo-Assyriacs

Would this name sort everything out? Gabr-el 20:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly it won't ... I am all for the name Assyrian Chaldean Syriac ... I am in many organizations like that, that unite our people under one. But in this case it would not work because there would not be a consensus over such things as history. TriZ thinks that he is a descendants of Aramaens, and some Chaldeans think that they are descendants of Ancient Chaldeans. There would be too much trouble ... I think my proposal is the best saying Assyrians (Also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs). - Malik Danno (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Malik, check the history from late march on the articles revision history, this "Also known as..." has already been discussed and it was removed by user:Chaldean. The TriZ (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

An Aramean page already exists. Please stop vandalising unrelated pages.--Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Assyrians

Obviously Dab has either misunderstood this line, or it should be rewritten,

"Assyrians can be divided along geographic, linguistic, and denominational lines, the three main groups being:..."

Assyrians can be found inside the three main groups though it doesn't mean that the thre groups are a part of the bigger Assyrian group. Saying all the three groups is smaller parts of the bigger Assyrian population is certainly not true and pure propaganda. The TriZ (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Enough

--Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I promised myself to stay out of so much nonsense, but we have now come to a point in which we can bare it no more. The Triz, the sources you have presented are biased and therefore unreliable to discuss a people that they themselves represent. On the other hand, USA today has nothing to do with Assyrians, and there is plenty of mention of Assyrians throughout the world, not only in the sources provided by Malik in the USA today, but for example in Great Britain :

• http://www.christiansofiraq.com/Parliament.html

• http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldhansrd/vo050706/text/50706-23.htm

You see the above two sources are from the United Kingdom's houses of parliament. You will probably reject these sources too.

To all other editors, I suggest we do something about The Triz. I was neutral on this topic before, but I am increasingly impatient at this nonesense. The Triz, you say that our people will never unite? Thats because you will not unite them. I have seen others make their points, you on the other wish to dismiss everything cited and have only pathetic cites from an Aramean viewpoint to prove Aramean stuffGabr-el 18:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and my sourecs are? We are brothers and sisters, we have almost the same culture and same language and we all believe in the same God. But our people will never unite since we aren't one people, we are two. We have Syriacs, who believe they are the decendents of the Arameans, and we have Assyrians, who believe they are the decendants of Assyrians. And I can't see that change. The TriZ (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Syriac does not equal Aramean. You have an Aramean page. Please avoid vandalising everything else.--Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Triz, it goes to show how little you know. Syriacs comes from the Greek corruption, "Syria". Theres ample sourcesin this article showing how the Greeks called the Syrians the Assyrians interchangeably. Later on, some of us adopted the name "Suraya" in a dark time in which we forgot ourselves due to Greek labellage. Aramaens are not the same as Syrians - how does one even get to such an absurd jump? Gabr-el 19:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one gives a damn about what we were called by the Greeks 2000 years ago, we really don't live in the bronze age. Aren't we all from the beginning the same people? But we have choosen different paths. Some rejetcs the Assyrian name, others embrace it. And you need to respect that. I'll leave this whole "Assyrian vs Syriac" thing for now, and I'm guessing soon enough your friends will have turned Mor Afrem Assyrian to... The TriZ (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No one gives a damn? Really? Is that your academic opinion Triz, to just dsicard all sources and to throw away all history and make up your own? Embracing the name "Syriac" and throwing away the name "Assyrian" is like saying I'm a man but not a human. Because the word man comes from the word human, in much the same way as the word "Syrian" comes from Assyrian. But you know what? Please do go away! Its much easier for the rest of us for you to go away with the wrong idea than try to convince people like you. No disrespect intended of course, because I still love you as my fellow Chaldo-Assyrian.Gabr-el 20:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Only shows how biased you are, just because Rollinger has said based on a stone that Syrian is arrived from Assyrian doesn't mean its true. And when I'm on it, old Greeks also said that Syrians were Arameans, as you can find it cited in the Aramean-Syriac page. And so did Ephrem the Syrian, Jacob of Serug, Michael the Great, etc, etc, etc... Your only looking at one side of the coin. Don't be so naive and don't ignore you yourself the proofs that there is a trace through history that proves an Aramean link. The TriZ (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't deny that I may have Aramaen blood in me. With all those deportations by Sargon etc... what I do deny is the stupidity of splitting us up further and further. Gabr-el 20:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying one is Syriac does not automatically imply that they are Aramean. There are Assyrians, Indians, Arameans, Arabs, etc who are "Syriac" religiously. "Assyrians" includes Syriacs, Chaldeans, Nestorians, Protestants, etc in terms of ethnicity. Triz, you have an Aramean page, please avoid vandalizing other articles.--Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

having heard all that ... and reading Gabr-el's sources (as well as mine) i feel inclined to put Assyrians (Also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs) in the first sentence ... If there is any objection after plz don't hesitate to bring it up. Malik Danno (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow folks. You are all talking nonsense. None of this has anything to do with writing a wikipedia article. "man" does not come from "human," by the way. Nationalism just really stops people from thinking rationally, doesn't it? Ugh. Assyrians, Syriacs, Turks, Arameans, anyone with a nationalist agenda that will interfere with their neutrality and rationality should not be editing this article. Please, if you are a nationalist, edit articles that have nothing to do with Assyrians and Assyria. Malik Danno, none of your references say that Assyrians are called syriacs or chaldeans. A couple of them do call Assyrians chaldeans, yeah, but that's not enough. What you have posted amounts to independent linguistic research. Independent research is not allowable in this encyclopedia. If you want a source that supports your change, you need a source that _states_ that Assyrians are called Syriacs and Chaldeans. I am reverting your change, as it is based on independent research. As for the name issue, I don't understand how any of you are arguing this. No one has cited any valid (modern) authority. I don't believe that any of you are arguing based on anything other than personal conviction. Think about why you're doing this? Is it because you have thoroughly studied the issue and have decided, based on actual primary and secondary source evidence, or is it because you have an emotional, personal response to the issue, and have maybe read a newspaper article which mentions it? The difference is important. Please don't use these statements against each other, because it is directed against all of you. The number one threat to neutrality on Wikipedia is nationalist pride!Helikophis (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can all assyrian fanatics please stop editing aramean-syriac artciles, since none of your edits are good edits. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe how lazy some "neutral" editors are in trying to keep a peace. No, we will not leave your pag alone, because it is nonesense and it is my duty as a wikipedian to correct it. Not one of your sources says anything about Aramaen Syriacs Gabr-el 15:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Helikophis, what on earth are you babling about? We have three Greek historians and another article http://www.aina.org/articles/ttaasa.pdf here proving our point that Syria is Assyria. Gabr-el 15:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Aina as source? You are kidding me right AramaeanSyriac (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

AramaeanSyriac did you even look at the link. Listen AINA sees journals posted and places them on their website. This is the actual journal by educated elites on Near Eastern Studies. Also I'm very disappointed that many of you aren't educated on the fact that once Greeks came to Mesopotamia they named the Assyrians Syrians so in that case Syrians (according to Greeks) are the decendents of the Ancient Assyrians who lived in Mesopotamia!!! After that Roman and Persian Empires took over the land they made a border in Euphrates River ... and the Syrians (Assyrians) who lived east of the river were called Assyrians while those other Syrians (Assyrians) were called West Syrians. I can't believe that you guys didn't know that important aspect of YOUR history. What's next ... you're going to deny that Syriac Orthodix Church was called Assyrian Orthodox Church before 1950s!! - Malik Danno (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"you're going to deny that Syriac Orthodix Church was called Assyrian Orthodox Church before 1950s" Please, are you kidding me? The name assyrian has never existed since jesus christ. The "Assyrian church of the east" did not exist. it was called the nestorian church and was changed to assyrian church of the east in 1967. Also there is 1000 sources telling us that Syriacs are arameans. You are not getting anywhere. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Show us the 1000 sources you speak of that calls aramaens syriacs. Gabr-el 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

AramaeanSyriac let's discuss how you deleted my edit by the reasoning of the sources don't provide what I edited. For one lets agree upon: If a news article states that any member(s) of the Chaldean Catholic Church or Syriac Churches (Orthodox and Catholic) are Assyrian then for that source it is understood as Chaldeans and Syriacs are also known as Assyrians ... If you do not agree with this then tell me what is incorrect with it. Second of all for each news agency mentioned tell me which one is not reliable. Second step would be to go through every source and see where it mentions what I just said. BBC article. the title is Assyrian revival stirs in Turkey and it mentions the Syriac Church as just a church and mentions the members of the church as Assyrians. Its about Assyrians (members of the Syriac Church) returning to their ancestral land ... If you don't agree with this article stating that members of the Syriac Church are Assyrians then let's debate that. BBC article. the article states "An estimated 40% of Soedertaelje's 80,000 inhabitants are first or second-generation immigrants.

Most are Assyrians - a Christian minority fleeing persecution in the Middle East." We all know that Soedertaelje has a very large and significant Syriac population. In this Article the majority Syriacs are called Assyrians. If you don't agree with this article that Syriacs are also called Assyrian then tell me what is wrong with it and we will discuss it further. New York Times article. This article talks about the tragic death of Paulos Rafaj Rahho (RIP) and states that "Assyrian Christians — of whom the Chaldeans are the largest denomination." Now if you don't agree in this article that Chaldeans are also known as Assyrian then let's debate it USA Today article. This article talks about the tragic death of Father Youssef Adel (RIP) and it mentions that he was an "Assyrian Orthodox priest". (P.S. he too called himself Assyrian). Father Youssef Adel was clearly a priest of the Syriac Orthodox Church and this article says he is an Assyrian Orthodox priest. This article is stating that Father Youssef Adel a Syriac priest was also known as an Assyrian priest. If there is anything wrong with this source let's discuss it. USA Today article. it states "Thrown into that ethnic cauldron are Armenian and Assyrian-Chaldean Christian minorities." again same thing ... if you want to discuss it bring it up UNPO (a international source) says "It is divided into different denominations including the following four Assyrian rites: Apostolic and Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, Assyrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, the Chaldean Catholic Church and Protestants. " again same thing let's discuss it if you dont agree with it

P.S. don't edit anything on the page before we have finished discussing this. P.P.S. I am not a nationalist (as I have stated above) I know what nationalism really is and what it has/can lead to. I am against any hyper-nationalist movements no matter which ethnic group (including Assyrians) - Malik Danno (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Helihophis brings up interesting points and you ignore them. "Because the word man comes from the word human, in much the same way as the word "Syrian" comes from Assyrian.". The only true thing you ever said, Gabriel.

Malik, I'm starting to believe you are stupid. It's absolutely true a majority of the people in Södertälje are Syriacs. So if a reporter calls them Assyrian, proves only the ignorance of the reporter and nothing else. You are clearly as ignorant as the reporter about this subject. Your sources can never be used in a wikipedian article to prove that Syriacs and Chaldeans are Assyrians. That's just plain stupidity. The TriZ (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all lets not name call anyone. I just have a couple of questions for you: How old are you? and What is your level of education? please answer those and soooo many questions will be answered. The issue over Södertälje is that the journalist and I know that it is majority Syriac Christians (orthodox and catholic) But thats it ... we see Syriacs as a religious denomination in this case while their ethnicity is in fact Assyrian. Also since BBC has a lot of responsibility over what it publishes and hearing your claim against that article are you also saying that BBC is an unreliable source? - Malik Danno (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing my level of education is higher than yours, based on the impression I get from you. Though I can't see how that's relevant in any way. Again, you have no idea what ethnicity is, if you knew, you wouldn't call the Syriacs of Södertälje Assyrians or you don't know nothing about Södertälje. So do yourself a favour and stop embarrass yourself.

Your saying a BBC journalist is an expert on the whole Syriac/Assyrian issue and is the one who determines which of the names is correct? The TriZ (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Malik. It does look like at least one of those sources uses Assyrian and Chaldean similarly. But this is not sufficient support for your change. What you have done is, IMO, independent research. You did research into how the word is used, and posted your data as citations. This is not how wikipedia works. A supporting source should _ explicitly state_ a fact. A valid source will say "Assyrians are also called Syriacs and Chaldeans." Reliability is irrelevant to this question, as none of your sources state this as a fact. Here is a relevant excerpt from the wikipedia policy page on original research: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in a way that constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research".

Additionally, I still believe that, even were you to find such a source, the statement is not in best interest of the reader. This is already a common misconception, and it's only likely to add to it. Also Malik, I do not feel that the BBC is, in general a reliable source. Possibly useful if there is no other information, but absolutely inferior to a peer-reviewed journal article or a university publication, really barely above a television programme.

Gabriel, I'm not arguing that Syriac isn't descended from Assyrian. There does seem to be good evidence for this. This doesn't mean Assyrians and Syrians are one nation. "Deutch" and "Dutch" are ethnonyms that also come from the same historical source, but they refer to two different groups of people. Slovene and Slovak are another example, and there are many more. Syrians and Assyrians have names that are derived from the same ancient empire. Today however they are different groups of people. I don't really understand what you think you are "proving" by this connection. Also, while the article by Rollinger is an excellent and perfectly appropriate source, ancient Greek historians are not (generally) reliable sources! They said all kinds of weird things, and speculated endlessly about the meanings of names, and were usually dead wrong! This time they were right, but in general, they are a very poor source for this sort of thing. Thank you, Helikophis (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can user:Gabr-el explain why he keeps adding the "(Also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs)"? I don't want to write the same thing as Helikophis just wrote above, so (re-)read it. The TriZ (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the source from the Houses of Parliament says so, by Lord Hylton and MP Stephen Pound (Chaldeans as Catholic Assyrians) and because the BBC articles presented talk about Assyrians in danger in southern Turkey and cite a Syriac monk. Gabr-el 23:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I just put in a request for help over at Wikiproject Ethnic Groups. Maybe they can help us sort this out. Helikophis (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Gabrel, I did read Stephen Pound, and just looked over it again, and do not see anywhere where he states that Assyrians are also called Syriacs or Chaldeans. He talks about Chaldean-Assyrians, which is a different term altogether! I don't see him explaining the circumscription of the term. I think that he's using it as shorthand for "Chaldeans and Assyrians," but I don't really know because he doesn't say what it means. Regardless, he does not explicitly state the fact that you are trying to use him as a reference for. That is the burden of proof! I don't think you understand what the original research policy means! Please read and understand it before you add this stuff back in again! Helikophis (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Helikophis thank-you for notifying Wikipedia people, hopefully they will help us in solving this. But I am confused over what you want and what would justify putting "Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs)" do you want that exact working in sources? because I will bet that every other source in wikipedia being used doesn't have the exact wording that is used on the page. Shouldn't the main focus of the passage being quoted justify the editor in paraphrasing what is meant? - Malik Danno (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though I don't agree how you just overlook all the news sources provided which call 'Syriacs' and 'Chaldeans' Assyrians I will wait for what others in Wikipedia who are neutral have to say. Besides that I will also try to provide journal and article sources which are prevalent in my argument. This is a report by Assyrian Council of Europe (Which is a prominent part of Europe and is internationally recognized) states that "As a result of a rich and ancient heritage, the Assyrians have come to be identified under many names throughout the ages and this is reflected in the human rights reports and political resolutions listed in this dossier by virtue of the fact that some documents use various names such as Chaldeans, ChaldoAssyrians, or Syriacs when referring to Assyrians." and for the rest of the report whenever mentions Assyrians it is states as such "The Assyrians (Chaldeans, Syriacs and other Christian minorities)" ... Now using this journal source which is by a respected international source ... are we justified in saying Assyrians (Also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs) if not then what about Assyrians (Chaldeans, Syriacs and other Christian minorities). Another source I found was which was done by VAHRAM PETROSIAN and in the journal he clearly states that "The Assyrians are also known as Syrians, Chaldeans, Assyro- Chaldeans or Syro-Chaldeans (Chaldo-Assyrians), Nestorians, and Ja- cobites." Now Please tell me if this journal which is from Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies, Yerevan is not reliable and please tell me wether or not this justifies me to put Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs). I also found another Journal Now this journal is from Iraq Sustainable Democracy Project and is states that Assyrians are " Sometimes called Chaldeans or Syriacs, and referred to as ‘ChaldoAssyrians’ in the Transitional Administrative Law, reflecting one single ethnic group." If this doesn't justify what I've trying to say all along then I don't know what will At this point I will only take Helikophis' response seriously because he/she is the only one in this debate who actually responds respectfully - Malik Danno (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Malik, Yes, that is the kind of explicit statement that is an appropriate source for this addition! I can't comment on the reliability of the Iranian source as I can't really find any info on them on the web, but if you are confident that they are, I won't argue it. I can't oppose the change on the grounds of original research with those sources. Note that I still don't feel it's the best addition on the grounds that I think it perpetuates confusion, but I will no longer oppose the change. Thank you for providing appropriate sources!

Helikophis (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

ok I have made the changes. If there is still anything wrong then please don't hesitate to ask questions. Helikophis i understand how you might think that this might confuse some, but I feel that it will confuse others more if it's not put in. Those who have heard Chaldeans and Syriacs under Assyrians will be confused over what each name really means. Also after we settle this I would want your help to clean up the Syriac-Aramaean page. There are very bias and unreliable sources there, and the writing in that page is very weak. - Malik Danno (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

New Debate

Ok lets concentrate all of our debating here. I don't like having to debate here, at the wikiproject page at the Aramaen page and at the Syriac template as well. I also suggest we take Dab's advice and ask a member from the WP:FTN page to take a look and see if this is not a fringe theory, or if it is. Gabr-el 22:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ive been reading your discussion pages.. and tbh i sometimes feel hate that i was born a suryoyo..wtf is it so hard to just make a article called Arameans/Assyrians!? why do you always have to backstab eachother? you all know that we are the same people! We are both suryoyo..even if your oromoyo or othuroyo or chaldoyo so stop the bullshit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodcheif (talk • contribs) 13:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, look at what I posted at the top. What did I say? Did I not demand from these people for unity? But you and I have a duty not to accuse the innocent with the guilty. Malik Donno said that he wanted unity and a discussion with reliable sources, which he provided. The Triz meanwhile has reciprocated by saying that we will never unite, that we have no one name under which we can agree with. Whom do you think I was inclined to agree with? The Users that follow sources and consensus, or the fool who says we cannot unite? I say, let us unite, and let those who fail to unite perish in their arrogance, and in the false knowledge of their so called millions strong Aramaic-Syriac race - by the way, not a single source by The Triz mentions this ridiculous nonsense "aramaic-syriac" - they speak only of Syriac or Syrians, and I have plenty of sources from USA today and the British Houses of Parliament that speak of Assyrians. What do you ? Are you still going to accuse everyone, or make an effort, as I did, to find out who was right and wrong? Gabr-el 00:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)