Talk:Assyrian people

Untitled

Someone should ask Professor Sargon G. Donabed. He is the best expert on Assyrian identity of any period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.245.48 (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Assyrian Population Number incorrect

Sources are old from early 2000s, need up to date sources on numbers. I also remember seeing from the article that the population was 5+ million, then I checked again to see 3 million, and now it's 2 million? What kind of bullshit is this? Is the population 5 million, 3 million, or 2 million?... ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 19:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible that the there are 3.3 million people that IDENTIFY as Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriacs in the world. The argument is not about the homeland, which we have the most accurate numbers about (250-300k in Iraq, 15-20k in Iran; 15-20k in Turkey; and 300k in Syria). The confusion, as you are saying, is that we do not know the worldwide numbers. Please refrain from changing it to 3.3 million, as those numbers are, in fact, from the late 1990s. Around 2 million is probably the most feasible number. If we have under 1 million in Bet-Nahrain, you think there are over 2 million people in Galuta (the diaspora)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I remember reading that 800k Assyrians from 1.5m left Iraq. Where did those 800k go? Also, I doubt there is 300k left because 1.5m minus 800k is still 700k. I also remember reading that other sources put the remaining number at 500k rather than 250-350k....

ALSO, I remember reading there was 1.2m Assyrians in Syria now the number is 400k? 800k from Iraq and 800k from Syria don't just disappear off the face of the planet.... ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 00:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I am sorry for the caps lock I put in "Identify" above. I think this a discussion that Assyrian communities must undertake. In regards to the Iraqi Christians, the estimates were that prior to the Iraq War, there were some 1-1.5 million Christians throughout the country. Please take in mind that that although there was not a significant community, there was small Arab Christian presence, most likely in the 100-300k. There were some 600-700k Christians who fled Iraq -- they moved primarily to Syria, Lebanon,Jordan (where there was almost zero Assyrian presence prior to the war), and western countries.

The 1.2 million number in Syria is utterly outrageous. There was a very small Assyrian population in northeastern Syria before the genocide and then after the Simele Massacre some fled to Syria to establish small villages along the Khabur river -- where the Assyrian concentration remained to stay even through the Syrian Civil War. These totaled some 300-400k who identify as Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs. According to NBC, there were at most some 1.6-1.7 million Christians throughout the country. Most Christians in Syria are Arabs who belong to Greek Orthodox or Syriac Orthodox (SOC) denomination. The fault here was to equate a large portion of the Arab-speaking and Arabized Christians of the SOC with identifying all as Assyrians. The original numbers were really, really off. That's why we're fixing them. The ADO, and other Syriac/Assyrian organizations hold that we are really 300k-400k in Syria. Sorry for this long post. I think you make a valid point about our population figures; why are the umbrella organizations not updating their numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Dudes, WP is based on sources (sometimes this does not mean facts but alas :) so stop fighting on the population numbers and simply use the data available in the sources and don't forget to make a reference to the sources. On the other hand, bot Infobox and the text clearly state there are 25 k in Turkey (at most) and then in the population map Turkey is in the colour spared for 50 k to 100 k. Please correct that map or I will delete it. (Or correct the population number for Turkey.) Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The numbers given by Simo Parpola are simply incorrect, he never made a statistic about our people he just made a simply estimate about what he thought. But we know through our organisations and parties in the US, EU, Australia... a more accurate statistic which is between 3.3 m and 4.2 m. There where about 1,4 million Assyrians in Iraq according to the Iraqi census of 1987, thats under 2 million only in Iraq in 1987 so its impossible that the figures are under 2 million worldwide now. And the user Penguins53 are removing sources like of the Assyrian population in Netherlands just becauses hes personal "contacs" doubt these numbers?! Its not about you personal opinions, i know from Assyrian organisations of Netherlands that there are at least 20,000-30,000 only Syriac Orthodox Assyrians in the Netherlans, and not like you said just a few hundreds. If you and your perosnal contacs only include the number of people from the Assyrian Chruch of the East then it might be right, but thats not about the Church affiliation. More than 1 Million Assyrians left Iraq since 2003, where did they go? If you dont belive these numbers than thats your buissness but stop changing the facts just because you dont believe it. Elvis214 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And adding to your post about that "majority of Christians in Syria are Arabs from the Greek Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox", yes the Greek Orthoox identify themselves as Arabs but the Syriac Orthodox Christians in Syria, also those which do not speak Syriac always consider themselves as "siryaniya" which means Suryoyo/Suraya = Assyrian. The majority of the Assyrians speak only Arabic that's no reason to exclude them from statistics. The most Assyrians in Iraq call themself for Iraqi Christians should we exclude them from the article? No they are still Assyrians and thats the the main thing. Elvis214 (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Syriac > Assyrian

this is unacceptable to redirect searches about Syriacs to articles about Assyrians, we (Syriacs) do not accept the Assyrian/Ashuri/Athuri naming period

Wikipedia have been hijacked by a Assyrian theory supporters, I have noticed that Syriac articles one by one been replaced, edited and falsified information. This is a planned attack against the Syriac Aramean identify. No wonder the Assyrian groups never gained any political success among the Syriac-Chaledan-Assyrian groups because they resort to such methods, not different from Baath parties propaganda to erase other people's identifies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.152.150 (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Syriac People redirecting to Assyrian People. Not all Syriacs are Assyrian this is fallacy. The Syriac Poeple that call themselves Assyrian can not prove or verify that they are purlly Assyrian with out doubt. In fact all evidence points to the fact that they are of Aramean heritge. The majority of Syriacs refer to themselves as Arameans. The Syriac poeple page should not redirect to Assyrian people page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syriac Association of Australia (talk • contribs) 01:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Tell me where are all your evidence to say that we are Arameans ? The fact that the word Suryoyo comes from the Akkadian word for Assyrian ? or maybe because we live in north-Mesopotamia for more than 5000 years and speak the official language of the Assyrian Empire ? And also because all the other people of the middle east know us as Assyrians and not as Arameans ? In fact you don't have more proof to say that we are only Arameans, we are from Assyrian heritage and maybe a little bit of Arameans since they lived in Syria not between the Tigris and the Euphrates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daywono (talk • contribs) 13:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You are simply wrong Suryoyo is not an Akkadian word as usual as with all your non scince based "facts" on this page, you make up "knowledge" and call it truth, the fact is which is proven by the poster below that Arabs call and know us in these arabic words "Aramin"(Plural of Aramean) or "Syrianin"(Spelling which translates Suryoye). It´s very obvius that you are a so called "assyrian" which is making up facts to fit your own false purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikel swe (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Shlomo, i am a Syrian-orthodox Aramean from Syria and in my hometown nobody calls himselfes Assyrian or Ashuri, but Oromoyo or Suryoyo. But let's be honest we are neither pure Assyrians nor Arameans since there were dozens of different semitic groups in the Levant including Mesopotamia with similar languages and cultures, and every group competet with each other or mingled. Just because the Arameans were from Syria doesn't mean they were only limited on this area. Have you ever heard from migration of the peoples? For example the Turks they are original from central asia or there are many people in North America with English ancestry who emigrate from the British island/Europe. I find it ridiculous when Assyrians claim they would speak Assyrian and not Aramaic, although the Assyrian language is dead. It's like when Australians say they speak Australian and not English. Language is an important identity for a nation without language you lose culture. How can you say then we are from Assyrian heritage when the ancient Assyrians have been assimilated into Aramaic culture and intermixed with them? Perhaps for a few Assyrian DNA there was nothing left from them while the language of the Arameans is still alive and important to us especially for our Chritian background. BTW just because many people may call us as "Assyrians" means nothing. The Spaniard call Germans Alemán. The word Alemán drives from Allemanic a Germanic folk which lived in Switzerland and southern Germany, but what does modern Germans have to do with it since they are not Alemannis but the Spaniard call them like that? It is not clear where the word Suryoyo really comes from. Some historians say that the Greeks have it derived from Assyria and called the Aramaic Christians by this name. The Aramaic Christians have taken this name to distinguish itselfes from the pagan Aramaic speaking people. A new nation was born namely the Syrians, but since the Arabs uses this name and many of our people do not want to be associated with Arabs or Islam they go back to the old name or other names such as Assyrian, and this is the real dilemma. The article should be called Syriac people not Assyrian to be neutral!--Hansestd (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right we're a mix of people of the ancient middle-east and speak a dialect of Aramaic but saying it's false to say we speak Assyrians is like saying Italians don't speak Italian, they speak Latin, but let's be honest : We never said : "Ahna oromoyena" in the homeland, nobody in Tur'abdin (or syria) used that name, it's just recently, when they immigrate to Europe and be influenced by those of Syria and the church, they started to use Oromoyo. The right name for our people is Assyrian because WE are Assyrians, the world know us as Assyrians,and also because Assyrian have a political meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daywono (talk • contribs) 00:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You don´t Speak Assyrian because There is NO language called "assyrian" nor has there EVER existed a language called "assyrian" the Ancient but now extinct assyrians spoke Akkadian but that language is now dead as can be. Aramean is the language that all Syriacs(Arameans) speak even those who call themselves Assyrians this is fact don´t come up with pseoudo knowledge based in your own personal beliefs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikel swe (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a big difference when you say that you speak Assyrian even tough you mean Aramaic, because the Assyrian language is dead otherwise you try to distort the facts or to deny it. For example an Arab who speak Aramaic as its mother tongue can´t say he is speaks Arabic, although he actually means Aramaic, but he justified it because he is an Arab. Italians do speak Italian! Italian is an independent language with Latin roots, but Latin and Italian aren´t the same because Italian has developed to a language of its own and an Italian wouldn´t understand you of you talk to him in Latin. Aramaic and Assyrian are two different and independent languages like German and English, because I often hear from some Assyrians that Aramaic comes from the Assyrian language or is a dialect of it, which is totally wrong. Why do you say we are Assyrians when already mentioned that we are a mixed. So that means that we also could call us Sumerians or Phoenician. I've written the exmaple with the Germans and it doesn´t matter by which name we are known in the world. The Germans call themselves "Deutsche" not "Germanen" because they have nothing in common with the old Germans anymore neither cultural, religon nor language. In reality the history of our nation began with the christianisation not with the Assyrians, Arameans, Sumerians they are history and only the Aramaic language was leaved nothing else. We are completely new and have given up our pagan life and built a new culture based on Christianity with the Aramaic language. Even Aramaic was renamed in Syrian by churches to emphasize this radical change. We have became a new ethnic nation with Christianity. We are Syrians and many Arameans accept this name, but not Assyrian where is no connection to them. Maby it would be better to give our people a new name which is by far best option at the moment. The name should have a christian term which all can identify maby Tur Abdineans or something like that:)--Hansestd (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The right name for our people is Assyrian, because Syriac has a Christian meaning in the West and we will continue to be labelled as Christians of the middle east with no land and no name, and also because Assyrian is widely used by all denomination of our people. For the language, I say as an Assyrian nation we CAN call our Aramaic dialect Assyrian, Syriac or Aramaic. No Assyrian deny it's Aramean heritage which is primary the language. Then, We're not anymore Syrians since like you said Arabs took this name for their fake land. You know that Suryoyo come from Assyrian and you said we have no connection with the Assyrians ? Our people use continuesly the name Assyrian (Suryoyo) as an ethnic name and (mshiHoye or suroye for christians), long before "Aramean", everyone know this. Don't use the church to say that we are Arameans or Syrians, there is plenty exemple where our forefathers says we are Assyrians too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E42:5D80:8985:620B:FEF5:11A5 (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Arabs may have took the Syrian name, but why should we be any more Syrians? I don´t care about the Arabs call themselves Syrians, because I know who is really meant by this name. After the fall of the Assyrian empire you get the Nedo-Babylonian empire and after that the Persian-empire. The Arameans are a much younger population than the Assyrians. But WE, the Suryoye or Syrians are part of all these populations as I said before! We are a mixed race, so why do you still remain on Assyrians and not Sumerians? The Sumerians lived before the Assyrians in Mesopotamia or do you like the history of the ancient Assyrians more? With the term Syrian the Greeks designated the Arameans or Aramaic speaking nation, because they were ignorant to see that the people didn´t call themselves Assyrians even though the area they lived on was still known as Assyria after several centuries (read the expample i´ll give you with the name for Germans in Spanish). The Christian Syrians (so are Assyrians, Maronites, Arameans, Chaldeans etc what they are called nowadays) or Syriacs are ethnic SYRIANS of semitic orgin who original were throughout the Levant and Mesopotamia at home. The terms Syrian and Aramean (Greek: Aramaioi) are identical and designate one and the same ethnically people. Suryoyo may comes from Assyrian, but it has a different meaning in this case namely Syrian=Arameans or Aramean speaking people who became Christians, not Syrian=Assyrian or Syrian=Arabs. The right name is Syrian. My parents and grandparents always said we are Suryoye and i am proud about it. --Hansestd (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if you call YOURSELF Syrian, but to the world it means citizen of the Arab republic of Syria, don't you get it ? The world will never see us as a nation if we follow what you say. You can say that YOU are a citizen of The Arab Republic of Syria but not our whole people, again we maybe Syrians, Assyrians or Arameans or other ancient people of North-Mesopotamia but we can not be qualified anymore as a 'Syrian' nation or people; you are a citizen of the state where you live, but your nation is Assyria... like the kurd, they never say we're Iraqi or Turk or Syrian, They say Kurd and are referred as Kurds in the West. Assyrian is our name that unite us All. I'm also Suryoyo and I'm proud about my ancestors, may they be Assyrians or Arameans, but again Assyrian has today a political meaning so we Have to use it, in order to be recognized by the West as one of the people of the Middle-East, not to be Iraqi christians or Syrians christians or Turkey's christians... I'don't care about what's the 'best' history... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daywono (talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are you so upset? In your first entry there was the talk that we are ethnic Assyrians and this was the topic for the following entries. Like it or not, but we are ETHNIC SYRIANS and unfortunately there is an Arab state by that name, but I would never get the idea to take the name of an ancient nation like the Assyrians and tinker me a new identity like a little child and this is the reason why so many are angry about it! Don´t tell me I am the only one here and 99,99% of our people agree with you! What do you mean with political meaning? Maby on local level somewhere in Kurdistan and the United States, where most Assyrian nationalists from Iraq have emigrated and can easily spread their ideas via the English language and English Wikipedia site. What about the other communities or churches? Especially in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden most of our people are Syrian-Orthodox there and call themselves as Aramean and they are known by this name, not as Assyrian. By your logic the term Aramean would also have a political meaning in the West today and this means that you also have to respect their attitude! To come back to this Wikipedia article again it should be called Syriac people only as an ethnicity without political meaning such as Assyrian, Chaldean or Aramean. I know you don´t like it because Syriac would be associated with Syriac-Orthodox Church right!? For political matters do sub pages called Assyrians (present), Arameans (present), Syriac-Assyrians or Syriac-Arameans and please remove silly none Christian personalities like Shalmaneser otherwise we also have to add Aramean persons like Ben-Hadad I to this page to be fair. If you are really interested to have a unification of our people on political level, then you must be willing to compromise and not ignore the majority of us and go your own way which includes a flag and the name, but let our history alone! --Hansestd (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You both have a valid point. The Assyrian name was found by early "Assyrian" nationalists who sought to unify all Syriac Christians in a single national identity. Butt's Assyrian Christians is an excellent source on this matter. The correct historical name should be as Hansestd mentioned "Syrians" Suryaye/Suryoye. For the Syrian identity developed by our Syrian fathers refer to Christian Political Thought in Greater Syria on the Eve of the Arab Conquest.--Rafy talk 22:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it mixes politics with history and ignores facts! The article claims that "Assyrians" are different from other Christian groups in the Middle East, such as Lebanon or other parts of Syria because of their DNA. An ethnicity is not only based on DNA, but also on culture and language. Even if most Maronites speak Arabic as their mother tongue today instead of Aramaic we still have many similarities with them and share the same background, with or without the same DNA. If it is all about DNA then we also have to add half Iraq to the list and remove most numbers from the Arabic people page, because not all Arabs are real Arabs! A similar research was done in Germany, where many Germans are actually from Slavic orgin and not Germanic especially in eastern Germany but do they try to distinguished from the others? Syrians or Suryoye is what really unites us all at least as an ethnicity. From political view I am not against names such as "Assyrian" or "Aramean", but it is hard to give exactly numbers about how many people or Syriacs consider themselves as one of them since there is no official state or document where church representatives agree on a name! For a poltical page called Arameans (present) or Assyrians (present) should be without numbers and none Christian personalities since there was no Christianity at the time of Shalmaneser or Ben Hadad, but I see no problem problem that both or even more sites can exist alongside as long as it is about politics and these movements are real. However, this page should be maintained with the numbers and persons (Assyrians, Arameans, Chaldeans etc) who were born after christianisation of the Levant and Mesopotamia but renamed into Syriac people or Suryaye/Suryoye. Persons who are neither Assyrian nor Arameans should be just called Syrian in Aramaic as a neutral form, otherwise citations should be given where this person claims to be Assyrian or whatever. --Hansestd (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think mixing politics with history is a problem, after all we wouldn't have talked of a single identity of all West and East Syrians if it wasn't for people like Addai Scher, Naum Faiq etc. who were essential in the making of the "mythology" of the Assyrian people that trace their history to ancient near eastern empires. This is analogous to the propoganda behind the creation of the modern unified nations of Germany and Italy.

The Maronites were indeed part of the Syrians but they were absent in the early nationalist awakening of other Syrian Christians. Anyway Maronites have completely abandoned Syriac for Arabic and their culture have merged with that of their Arab neighbours.

I don't think that this article defines the Assyrian based on DNA, even if it's so it should be corrected.

This page is called "Assyrian people" because it was assumed that this is the most popular name in English language, refer to WP:COMMONNAME. I realise that there is a trend to call the group Assyrian/Syriac as in Swedish census and Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac the US census, the last name seems also to gain prominence in Iraqi minority politics. I therefore don't mind a rename if a consensus is reached.--Rafy talk 13:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Syrians don't unite us at all, but in our language i think Suryoye is the right name, othuroyo was a new name. But I maintain, we should'nt use the term Syrians since it means arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daywono (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Syrians unites us only as an ethnicity with the same language, religion and culture that's it. I have no doubt for this name for our ethnicity and everything else would be historical falsification. On political level we are not united otherwise we wouldn´t have "Assyrian", "Aramean" and "Chaldean" groups out there. But I agree we you Daywono I wouldn´t use the Syrian name for politics today except for our ethnicity of course, where our identity now times is based on and many people seem to forget this. But the question is, if all Syriac people must be forced to merge on political level. Even that will not happen, when already many of us don´t know their identity and chases ancient peoples. Of course it would be great to see one single group with one flag and name, but there is no reason to say there can´t be even more groups with different (only) political names such as "Assyrian" or "Aramean" to be recognized by the world. Arabs are also known by different names in politics such as Iraqis, Algerians or Egyptians, but they are united by their Arab background. In magazines people in Iran are known by thier political name namely Iranian and not Persian (ethnicity) and I bet many people don´t know it. If you keep your Assyrian flag in the camera the world will call you Assyrian and not according to your ethnicity and the same applies for Arameans. Don´t worry about it.--Hansestd (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Again we use the name Assyrian for this article only because it is more common in English, you might think it should be renamed to Aramaean people another one thinks Chaldean is a better answer but it comes at the end to WP:COMMONNAME and not to which one is more correct.

I personally do use the terms Eastern and Western Syrians when editing historical subjects before the 18th century but these terms are no longer used by scholars and are thus no longer appropriate.--Rafy talk 16:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Rafy, I thought Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia where facts and truths are something worth or are you affraid because of an editing war?--Hansestd13 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Any user can change anything in the article using WP:RS. You should take into account the wide variety of opinions on origins an identity. Changing the name is a different matter however since we have other criteria for it.--Rafy talk 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

My two cents is that we should do as the Swedish article does writing Aramean/Asyrian/Chaldean and in the article mention that it is so because a name conflict exists. And to those who said that the Aramaean people assimilated in to the Assyrian people are wrong by the definition of the word Assimilation in almost all known cases where assmilation of a people has been successful it always the people being occupied that take the language of the people they got assimilated with in this case the Arameans if truly assimilated would have spoken akkadian and not reversed which shows that the so called assimilation was very unsuccessful or more likely it just didn´t happen. The ancient Assyrians was waring allot being a people of the sword which most likely rendered thei men extinct, that left the Arameans who where a people of the Pen and didn´t care much for wars to influence the Assyrians to take their language and traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikel swe (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that most of them think they are Assyrians because they live on an area which was indeed part of the Assyrian empire. But what people are now living there? Kurds, Arabs and Turks of course. The Assyrian Empire extinct thanks to all its wars and the cities and villages were repopulated by the Arameans and the Assyrians who were left intermixed with them. The same thing happens nowadays where Kurds and Arabs move to our deserted villages or make us a minority there but our faith prevents us from mixing with them!--Hansestd13 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A compound name is a solution that worked in Swedish and Arabic Wikipedia's. I would also vote for it if it satisfies most users here.--Rafy talk 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Assyrians and Arameans are actually two different peoples anyway! There is CULTURAL similarity, but they speak differing languages, live in different regions and have different genetic profiles. Yepiskoposian et al., Iran and the Caucasus, Volume 10, Number 2, 2006, pp. 191-208(18), "Genetic Testing of Language Replacement Hypothesis in Southwest Asia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Assyrians and Syriacs are actually no different from each other; both groups speak Aramaic, both have the same culture, and both are equally persecuted by Muslims. By technicality, calling each other Assyrian or Syriac isn't wrong because Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs all speak Syriac and most of Assyrians live around the Assyrian heartlands.

It's extremely shameful however that the Arameanists, Assyrianists, and Chaldeanists don't unite or support each other. They are all one and the same Mesopotamian people. Foreign politicians, like Erdogan, Hafez Al-Assad, and Massoud Barzani, are exploiting our division and it's shameful because we listen to them and let them divide us further. Right now we are arguing over what to name ourselves which is stupid because you don't want to call yourselves Assyrian, Aramean, or Chaldean; then at least call yourself what you are: Mesopotamian ܠܹܐ ܢܲܚܦܝܬܘܿܢ? ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 16:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@talk..There never was a Syrian Race in Antiquity, or now. The term Syrian is an Indo-European, Indo-Anatolian and Hellenic corruption of Assyrian...the vast majority of scholars accept this, and it is backed up by archaeological proof in the form of the Cinekoy Inscription. Initially the term meant Assyrian to the Indo-European speakers of Asia Minor, and it applied to the inhabitants of the land of Assyria (which did not include modern Syria or Lebanon, except the northeast corner of Syria). Under the Seleucids the term was also applied to The Levant, an area known previously as The Land of the Amurru, Aram, Aramea and Eber Nari..a land where (excepting the north east) the inhabitants were never Assyrians (or Syrians=Assyrians) but Amorites, Eblaites, Arameans, Phoenicians, Ugarites etc. The term Syrian originally meant Assyrian, it is now inaccurate to use this term when describing Assyria proper or the Assyrian people.

Chaldean Catholics ARE however Assyrians, ones who entered communion with Rome between the 16th and 18th centuries, and most do accept they are ethnically Assyrian. Most Christians in Syria ARE actually Arameans, they are culturally similar, but geographically, ethnically, historically, linguistically and genetically distinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Where does the word Syrian come from? It comes from the word Assyrian. So how can there be a Syrian Race, this is rubbish. The Greeks caused this confusion in 300 BCE. They called all of the Semites from what we now call Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Anatolia, Iran and Jordan as Syrians and we know this, so why are people still using Syrian and Aramean for the native people of Northern Iraq??????? Before the Selucid Empire the name Syrian just meant Assyrian people from Assyria, from then afterwards it applied to all sorts of unrelated peoples in different places, not one race or place. So there is no Syrian race, and if there ever was one, it meant the Assyrian race. How can some people not get this???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.29.174 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that any of you "Assyrians" have read the comments above you. Then why are you not writing comments directly to Hansestd13 or Maikel swe statements. You always give the same garbage of you and do not get into a real discussion. Should I help you??

92.26.29.174: "Where does the word Syrian come from?"

Hansestd13: "...With the term Syrian the Greeks designated the Arameans or Aramaic speaking nation, because they were ignorant to see that the people didn´t call themselves Assyrians even though the area they lived on was still known as Assyria after several centuries (read the expample i´ll give you with the name for Germans in Spanish)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZUoreu9 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Simeon Stylites was not Assyrian

He was from the extreme northwest of syria in modern day adana. There is no mention ever of him having Assyrian ancestry, only syrian ancestry and the definition of "syrian" is still debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuryanAntiochia (talk • contribs) 08:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Syrian and Assyrian are being used interchangeably in the article. As in the descendants of people of the Syrian race in antiquity came to be frequently known as Assyrians in modern times.--Kathovo talk 14:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

They should not be used interchangeably. There is no evidence connecting the West Syrians of Antiquity to those Christians that hail from the Nineveh plains. In fact there is undeniable evidence that the term Syrian was applied on those Arameans west of the Euphrates, and not the people who called themselves Assyrian, Ashurian, or Othurian. In fact the quotes used to back up the assumption that the term Syrians was applied to the Assyrians are from people who under examination claim things contradicting many other historians. Palestine was part of Syria in the antiquity, so what makes you think Assyria(or appropriately called Othur) was really Syrian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.240.87 (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@talk - There never was a Syrian Race in Antiquity or now. As you well know, the term Syrian is an Indo-European, Indo-Anatolian and Hellenic corruption of Assyrian...the vast majority of scholars accept this, and it is backed up by archaeological proof in the form of the Cinekoy inscription. Initially the term meant Assyrian to the Indo-European speakers of Asia Minor. Under the Seleucids the term was also applied to The Levant, an area known previously as The Land of the Amurru, Aram, Aramea and Eber Nari..a land where (excepting the north east) the inhabitants were never Assyrians (or Syrians) but Amorites, Eblaites, Arameans, Phoenicians, Ugarites etc. The term Syrian originally meant Assyrian, it is now inaccurate to use this term when describing Assyria proper or the Assyrian people...UNLESS it is explained that it meant Assyrian in antiquity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Numbers Based on Assyrian members of the Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Church, Ancient Church of the East, Syriac Catholic, and Syriac Orthodox"

I will remove the numbers "based on different church members" since we can not just count the memebrs of the different churches up, first of all the church memebrship do not reflect the ethnic population, and the numbers of the source seems not be very accurate. Let us just use the source of AUA (Assyrian Universal Alliance) till we get another source of the ethnic population, it is also the numbers in which the AUA represent the Assyrians in the UNPO. Elvis214 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Dude, you can't just keep on putting the AINA numbers which are not based on anything. The 3.3 million number: yes, I understand, this is from the UNPO.

Adding up the members of the churches is at least statistically plausible. You don't have influxes of groups "converting" into Assyrian Christianity. 99% of those aforementioned churches are ethnically Assyrian, so it's safe to say that, yes, in this case, church membership does, to some degree, represent an ethnic group.

You should leave the 1.7 million number as a conservative estimate. It is foolish to keep on removing a clearly sourced and fact-based number, whereas the 4.2 million is a.) 20 years old and b.) not based on evidence or facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm just saying that there's really no way that there are over 4 million people who identify as Assyrian, Chaldean, or Syria worldwide.

We have a solid 300,000 in Iraq, 15,000-20,000 in Iran; some 15,000-20,000 in Turkey; and a few hundred thousand in Syria. Then, there are most likely some 200,000 in the U.S., 100,000-120,000 in Sweden, some 20,000-30,000 in Australia. And the rest are spread out in smaller populations throughout the world. That is nowhere near 4.2 million.

I'm not saying that 1.7 million is 100% reliable. It's a range, and a reliable conservative figure, at that. The page should say 1.7-3.3 million. Not 4.2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Pre War Population of Assyrians in Iraq was between 1-1,5 million, so now it dropped to 300,000. There was 1-1,5 million in Iraq but where are those at least 700,000 who fled? In Syria the number range from 700,000 to 800,000 only for the Syriac Orthodox Church, alone in the al Aassakeh Governorate about 200,000 mostly Syriac Orthodox Assyrians. Elvis214 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous

Syriac people (or Syrians/Arameans سريان/آراميون) are a different ethnic group from the Assyrians. They have a different language and national identity. It is unacceptable to get the "Syriac people" redirected here.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly not the consensus among any past or modern scholars and academics. "Syriacs" might not say that they are "Assyrian," and "Assyrians" might not say they are "Syriacs," but both "groups" would certainly say that they are of the same people and heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

How is that unacceptable to get Syriac People here ? Why do you want to divide us ? ܙܳܟ ܡܶܩܫܰܬ ܗܰܬ ܘ ܒܰܒܳܟ , We are Assyrians/Syriac not 'Syrians' since this terms now refers to a citizen of the Arab Republic of Syria! We ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܐܘ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ are ONE PEOPLE, FROM MESOPOTAMIA : BETWEEN the TWO RIVERS. Don't associate us with Arabs and others 'Syrians' (Unfortunately they 'stole' our name). Can't Even write Syriac and you dare to say that Assyrians and Syriacs are two differents people ? We share the exact same language : Classical Syriac which is understandable by both Syriac/Assyrians, we share same customs and life style. In some Areas we lived together (For example Mydiat : where there was Chaldeans adherents and Syriacs Orthodoxs members, Dyarbakir (Omid), Qamishlo, in numerous village in what is today Irak...). We do not accept such claims which are completely false and just aims to feed all the misleading theories/claims of unscrupulous people! Bar-Neshro (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)ܒܪܒܪܩܐ

Culturally Assyrians are the same as Levantine Syriacs, however ethnically, linguistically, geographically and genetically they are not. Assyrians are those Syriac Christians from ASSYRIA; Ie Northern Iraq, Southeast Turkey and northeast Syria...a Christian from Damascus or Beirut is clearly not an Assyrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2014

Hi,please,

I want to change the arabic (banu ashoor) to the Syriac name of our people : ܣܘܪܝܝܐ. Why did you put Arabic instead of Syriac ? this is completely non sense, it would be like writing (in French) Peuple Anglais in the English people page... Plus, banu ashoor is completely false... Arabs never call us by that name, they use Ashuri or Suryani... 'AynHaylo (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done.--Kathovo talk 13:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you, please, add the word ܣܘܪܝܝܐ like other people's wikipedia page where their name are spelled in their language and alphabet ?'AynHaylo (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done, added name unvocalised and without syame, transliteration is omitted since it varies.--Kathovo talk 09:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Lede: on names- Syrians, Arameans, Syriacs, Chaldeans?

Regardless which name is "more correct", Arameans is also used by scholars. See here and here for examples. Please do not remove them.--Kathovo talk 13:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Aramean is not used by Scholars to describe those people from Northern Iraq and its surrounds though. Scholars usually reserve that for Christians from Syria. Also, why use a name rejected by all Assyrians. Assyrians accept Assyrian, Chaldo-Assyrian and Syriac, but none refer to themselves as Syrian or Aramean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

[1][2][3] are just a few academic sources I collected in 5 minutes to support the usage of Arameans and Syrians.--Kathovo talk 09:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

But not by Assyrians themselves. We would not use foreign designations describing the English would we? So why use terms not used by Assyrians themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 12:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, Becker is in a minority position among scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 12:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

So Becker, Fiey, Wilmshurst, John Joseph, Macuch, Brock... are all in the minority, that's some big minority don't you think?--Kathovo talk 11:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Eddie Drood, we wouldn't use "foreign designations" describing the English because this is English Wikipedia. The analogy is closer to the Greeks calling themselves "Hellenes": we nevertheless use Greeks here. The only issue is what are they called in English-language literature, and it seems from Kathovo's links that Aramean is used. It's not relevant that Assyrians may or may not object - although if it is proporly sourced it could be noted that Assyrians do object to it. DeCausa (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I put an edit in regarding names, with three references, and pointed out that in the west a number of other terms were used ie Syrians, Arameans etc were used by various western sources. This was referenced and balanced, but removed???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldnt this be made clearer? Assyrians dont call themselves Arameans (they are a different race), and when you use the names 'Syrians' and 'Syriacs' these are historical derivatives of 'Assyrians' originally, but now Syrian means a citizen of Syria, most of these are now Arabs, Kurds and Syriac Arameans. Chaldean is only a religious term. All this should be made much clearer. The way it is written makes it look like Assyrians are Syrians or Arameans or related to the old Chaldean tribe. You can pint out what scholars called them and why in a seperate paragraph, because it is misleading.

@talk and talk The difference here is Greeks call themselves Hellenes, whereas Assyrians never call themselves Arameans. And the useage of Arameans is usually used to refer to Syriac Christians from Syria, not northern Iraq. Links were also provided from numerous scholars stating that the original and proper name was Assyrians, and that other names were later add ons. I propose a change to this section, with a separate paragraph explaining the different useages in English. Also, Kathovo, many scholars do not use the term Aramean in reference to Assyrians, and Assyria/Athura/Assuristan was never called Aram. Syria and Syrian are generally accepted to be originally only derivatives of Assyria, not explaining this clearly leads readers to assume Assyrians are connected to the modern term Syria, a largely Arab Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 04:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You're putting the conflict as yourself against the scholars which won't get you anywhere. In Wikipedia verifiability beats truth anytime.--Kathovo talk 09:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@talk - Scholars? I can provide links to scholars who say clearly that Assyrians are Assyrians, and these later names are both innacurate and Western add ons. Artur Bohac a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Travis, Hannibal. Genocide in the Middle East: The Ottoman Empire, Iraq, and Sudan. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2010, 2007, pp. 237-77, 293–294, Hannibal Travis http://conference.osu.eu/globalization/publ/08-bohac.pdf, Mordechai Nisan Nisan, M. 2002. Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle for Self Expression .Jefferson: McFarland & Company., Eden Naby [[ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/02/the_end_of_christianity_in_the_middle_east]], as well as Biggs, Frye, Parpola, Tsertelli, Badger, Brinkman etc etc...So, providing links from SCHOLARS to support this position, which you seem to accept as TRUTH, does not count? Or do only certain scholars count? Once more, the other names issue should be in a separate short paragraph. And WHY remove Ashuriyun, Assouri and Chaldo-Assyrian ??? Is it because they sound too Assyrian??

Basically, if I can support my edits with references, I should not have them reverted. I propose to edit again, WITH Scholarly References. So there can be no reason to revert it again on the grounds that they are unsupported by academic study and opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned, some identify as Assyrians others as Arameans or Chaldeans etc. None of the sources you bring prove what you claim, bring a sufficient number of scholarly sources that claim that "only" Assyrian is the correct form. Ashuriyun is a modern Arabic names and Assouri is Armenian, it makes no sense to put those names in the lede.--Kathovo talk 19:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@talk - That is simply incorrect. (A) - No Assyrians identify as Arameans. This article is about Assyrian People from what was Assyria, Athura, Assuristan (Mesopotamia, modern Northern Iraq) and NOT Middle Eastern Christians in general. Chaldean Catholic is a theological term which most Chaldean catholics accept as such, as they do the inclusive term Chaldo-Assyrian, which is more accurate and valid, and yet utterly illogically removed by yourself!!!!. I guess because the word Assyrian is mentioned, this goes against your personal opinion.

(B) Ashuriyun is NOT a modern term, it is Medieval, circa 12th century AD, it PREDATES Chaldean and Aramean as a term used to describe Assyrians from Mesopotamia, as does Assouri in relation to Chaldean, therefore these terms are more valid than those. Again, I guess because the word Assyrian is mentioned, this goes against your personal opinion.

(C) The terms Syrian and Syriac originally derived from Assyrian, most scholars accept this, and it is mainstream opinion. Originally it meant only Assyrian, it was only during the Seleucid Empire, some 600 years after the term was first used to describe Assyria, that the term was added as a description of The Levant also. If these names are to be used, this should be pointed out.

(D) The term Syrian is a misnomer when applied to Assyrians today, as it refers to the Syrian Arab Republic and refers to a geographic region not inhabited by Assyrians and which was never Assyria.

(E) I did not state that Assyrian was the ONLY term used to describe Assyrians, but that it was the oldest, the preferred term and the most accurate. Also that the other terms were applied by outside, largely Western sources from the Seleucid period onwards.

(F) The numerous sources I provided state point (E) quite acceptably.

(G) The other names listed at the beginning of the article confuse, at least without an explanation of how they came to be.

(H) There are Separate Wiki entries for Arameans, Arameanism and Phoenicianism which cover those Near Eastern Christians who are not Assyrians, do not come from Assyria/Mesopotamia/Iraq and do not see themselves as Assyrians. They should have their own sections.

(I) There is no such Ethnicity as Syrian or Syriac. As a Nation, Syria refers to the Syrian Arab Republic. Originally Syrian and Syriac meant Assyria specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(a) This is still your own opinion, it contradicts Brock's, who is probably the most authoritative figure on the history and culture of Syriac Christianity.

(b) "Ashuriyun is NOT a modern term, it is Medieval", care to show a reference to this claim? It is still an Arabic name, it's like you start the British people article with: "British also known as Les Britanniques".

(c) Nobody disputes that one derives from the other, it still doesn't mean we should ditch the more modern one. Tajik is derived from the Arab tribe of "Tayy", does this mean that Tajik is fake and we should rename it to Tayy?

(D) and (E) Again this contradicts with Brock's assertion. Bring a reference as authoritative as Brock then we can argue about this.

(F) You just mention names, How are supposed to verify those claims without proper references? i.e. book names and page numbers.

(G) On the contrary, they serve to show that this article talks exactly about the same people that Morony calls Arameans and O'Leary calls Syrians. Not having them will create a confusion.

(H) They are still considered the same people with different names, as per Iraqi, American, Swedish, Australian census bureaus, as well as various leading political and nationalist organisations that support compound names such as Motua, here is aquote from Zowaa as well:[4]

“ ... It is characterized by the unity among our people with their multiple names as Syriac, Arameic, Chaldean, Assyrian the true inheritors of the Babylonian and Assyrian civilization of Mesopotamia – Beth Nahrain. ”

(I) Strange claim, how can reconcile this with the book titled "History of the Syrian Nation" written by an Assyrian intellectual from Urmia in 1910. Again your sourceless claim is contradicted by Macuch and Brock.--Kathovo talk 10:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Just want to give my opinion : As an Assyrian nationalist, I would suppress Arameans, Chaldean and Syriac. But unfortunately, a part of our people are attached to those terms which are a part of our identity, culture and history. At international level, like Kathovo mentioned it, our people is not recognized only under the name Assyrian : Iraq use (or used not sure) the term Chaldo-Assyrian. France also use the term : Assyro-chaldéen for all our people. USA use the term chaldean/assyrian/syriac since 2000. same for Sweden.

For the term Syrian, it should only be mentioned in the section self-designation for the simple reason that it refers to a citizen of the state of the Arab Republic of Syria... 'AynHaylo (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Very simply, if these other names are mentioned, there needs to be a short section explaining them. All of the Christians of the Middle East very clearly are not identical, any more than the Muslims are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@talk The term Ashuriyun was first mentioned in the 10th century AD by Abu al-Faraj Muhammad Ibn Ishaq al-Nadim, hardly a modern term, and it certainly predates Chaldean and Aramean.......According to Bayard Dodge, in his index titled Fihrist al-Nadim, Abu al-Faraj Muhammad Ibn Ishaq al-Nadim, who described many people, gives a definition of the word Ashuriyun (Arabic for Assyrians) as such: Their master and chief is named Ibn Siqtiri Ibn Ashuri. They collect revenues and profits. In some things they agree with the Jews and about other things they disagree with them. They appear to be a sect of Jesus (Dodge 1970).Italic textThe Fihrist (Catalog): A Tench Century Survey of Islamic Culture. Abu 'l Faraj Muhammad ibn Ishaq al Nadim. Great Books of the Islamic World, Kazi Publications. Translator: Bayard Dodge.

And yes, Assyrians used Syrian BECAUSE it originally meant Assyrian, this IS mainstream opinion among linguists, historians and orientalists today.

Michael the Syrian - ... That even if their name is now "Syrian", they are originally "Assyrians" and they have had many honourable 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" (the all meaning Aramaic speaking Christians), 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 "Assur" (Ashur) who built the city of Nineveh.Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 12:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael the Syrian - "...the kingdoms which have been established in antiquity by our race, (that of) the Arameans, namely the descendants of Aram, who were called Syriac." Michael the Syrian is talking about those people who WERE of Assyrian origin but not ARE Assyrian. Seriously do you consider modern Egyptians as the same Egyptians I mean those people who lived in ancient times and built pyramids? They have nothing in common with them anymore because they are now Arabized and Islamized and the same can be said about the so called Assyrians who were assimilated into Aramaic culture and intermixed with Arameans. Do you think just because Assyrians lived in Mesopotamia they are the owner of it? Why are Kurds, Turks and Arabs there if that is Assyria. Do you know what Migration Period is? Should I point out that even other Semitic ethnicities lived there before and after the Assyrians, e.g. the Arameans had many city-states on this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZUoreu9 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually found the text in original Arabic here, the exact text is:

الأسوريين وصاحبهم ورئيسهم يقال له بن سقطرى بن أسورى يسقون الأموال والمكاسب ويوافقون اليهود في شيء ويخالفونهم في شيء ويظهرون ملة عيسى.

This ambiguous sect is named Aswariyīn after their leader bin Aswara, obviously they have nothing to do with "Nestorians" who are repeatedly called Suryān throughout this book.--Kathovo talk 14:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014

"and the now largely Arabic-speaking, but previously Western Aramaic-speaking Syriac-Aramean Western group ("Syrian Orthodox", and Syrian Catholic") found mainly in south central Turkey and Syria."

must change Western Aramaic-speaking to Eastern Aramaic-speaking, Turoyo and the few others dialects related to Turoyo are Eastern Aramaic dialects, if not there will be confusion with the true Western Aramaic-speaking people of Maaloula and surroundings villages. also Syriacs Orthodox/Catholic are also in Iraq... in Addition of this, those who speak arabic are mainly found in Syria and those who speak Aramaic are found in Turkey and Iraq (In Iraq they speak the same dialect as Eastern Syriacs/Assyrians). must also change Syrian Orthodox/Catholic to Syriac because Syrian refer to a citizen of the Arab Republic of Syria and not an ethnic Syriac. 'AynHaylo (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I approve of this change. Penguins53 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Penguins53

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Since Penguins53 says go for it, I would love to help out here, but in order not to make things worse, you need to be very clear. Is it only a matter of change "Western Aramaic-speaking" to "Eastern Aramaic-speaking" in the first case, and change "Syrian" to "Syriac" in two cases in the same sentence? Sam Sailor ^Sing 20:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not clear. Yes it's primarily about change Western Aramaic to Eastern Aramaic and replace Syrian by Syriac.

I would also add Iraq as one of the native country of Syriacs since there is a few village and Monastery. I would also suppress the "now largely Arabic-speaking" since most of Syriacs especially those of Europe (those who are active culturaly and politicaly) speak Turoyo (There is 2 channel broadcasting in Turoyo : Suroyo Tv and Suryoyo Sat and one Web TV : Assyria TV) with some who speak the same dialects of the members of the Church of the East/Chaldean Catholic Church. 'AynHaylo (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, 'AynHaylo. Having spend a couple of minutes reading the talk page, I'll pass on this one and leave it for Kathovo. This I do solely due to my own incompetence regarding the subject and the article's editing history. Happy editing, Sam Sailor ^Sing 23:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the divisions as requested and removed the reference since it doesn't state what it is claimed. As for name it is more complicated, during antiquities and middle ages "Syrian" was a more popular ethnonym as attested by names of various historical personalities, e.g. Ephrem the Syrian, Isaac the Syrian, Michael the Syrian, etc...--Kathovo talk 11:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The official name of this churches is Syriac. Syrian is no more used since it can refers to Arabs, Kurds or others citizen of Syria. This is the principal Reason. Secondly, you use the official name of the Assyrian church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church and Ancient church of The East, you should do this also for The two Antiochian Syriac Churches. If you based yourself on the historical names, just suppress Chaldean Catholic Church, Ancient Church of the East and just leave Church of the East. In the same passage, you use the official name of the Eastern Syriac Churches, but for the two Western Syriac Churches you use their old name... Also you should also add Iraq as one of the countries where Syriacs have historical presence : Maphrian of the East, Mor Matay Monastery, and few villages... 'AynHaylo (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well Syrian was a common historical name that is still widely used in academic circles, see for example [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] [14]... Removing the term will create even more confusion for those unfamiliar with the naming controversy.

I will request lowering down protection level of this page so that you may edit the page yourself.--Kathovo talk 13:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've edited it. I don't think it will bring more confusion for those unfamiliar with our naming controversy. Syrian is already mentioned at the beginning of the page and has a dedicated part for the name controversy. You should raise the editing level.'AynHaylo (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldnt this naming issue be made clearer? Assyrians dont call themselves Arameans and they never have (they are a different race), and when you use the names 'Syrians' and 'Syriacs' these are historical derivatives of 'Assyrians' originally, but now Syrian means a citizen of Syria, most of these are now Arabs, Kurds and Syriac Arameans. Chaldean is only a religious term. All this should be made much clearer. The way it is written makes it look like Assyrians are Syrians or Arameans or related to the old Chaldean tribe. You can point out what some scholars called them and why in a seperate paragraph, because it is misleading at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.29.174 (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Assyrians in Syria

By simple math if 40 Syr Catholic + 40 Chaldean + 40 both Assyrian + 200 Syr Orthodox total number would be between 300 - 400 thousand.[15][16][17]. Gabriel Moushe confirms this by citing 400-500 including the Maronites.[18]--Kathovo talk 12:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your numbers, Kathovo. The numbers currently listed seem highly inflated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In Syria alone the Syriac Orthodox Church members range between 700,000 and 800,000 people, just in the Nothern al Hassakah Governorate about 200,000 mostly Syriac Orthodox Assyrians. The most sources are not very accurate and old, there are no real statistics about our people in Syria, but the most new estimates put the Syriac Orthodox Christians in Syria at 800,000 and 80,000 in the USA http://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2014/04/article_3083979.html/ Elvis214 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You mentioned 200,000 in Hasaka which is a number I find reasonable 2 decades ago when most of those Assyrians ended up in Germany and Syria. I can't imagine that 600,000 would live only in Aleppo and Damascus. We know that Greek Orthodox and Catholic make up the first and second largest denominations, that wouldn't leave much for Assyrians. BTW news articles are not dedicated sources, they probably got their figures from Wikipedia.--Kathovo talk 19:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of Assyrians?

What ever happened to pictures of ancient Assyrian kings such as Sargon and Essarhaddon that were originally included in the picture template at the upper right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Some should be added back, The pictures should reflect the Assyrians through the ages. Maybe someone who wants to split modern Assyrians from their ancestors with a POV agenda has done this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.29.174 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I myself am agnostic about those specific pictures. Ancient Assyrians spoke a different language, had a different religious and customs than modern ones. One can claim since modern Italians are different from Romans then there should be a distinction here as well. I do believe in certain continuities but this still only makes them ancestors of Assyrians, something similar to how French relate to the ancient Franks.--Kathovo talk 19:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless we have good sources that there is direct continuity, then they should no more be included here than Alexander should be included as Macedonian. — kwami (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

???? There are PLENTY of sources!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2014

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

The result of the move request was: No move. Either option is acceptable by the relevant guidelines, and there's no consensus the proposed title is superior for other reasons. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Assyrian people → Assyrians – Common and standard form. Jaqeli (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose, both formats are equally acceptable so no reason to move. False premise that "Foo people" is not common or standard. Both formats are widely used and there are multiple "Foo people" articles per Irish people, English people, French people, Syrian people and many others. DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support: the name as is, "Assyrian people," is clunky. The term "people" is better reserved for nationalities and not ethnicities. Furthermore, it adds confusion to the topic; it can make people think that Assyrians are are group of people, like a tribe or nomadic group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 11 May 2014‎ (UTC)

• Support per nom and User:DeCausa (sic). The proposed name is precise while being more common and more concise. Unlike the examples given by User:DeCausa of Irish, English, and French which are ambiguous without "people" appended, "Assyrians" is not. (Note that the former examples are DAB pages while the latter redirects here.) —  AjaxSmack  16:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Syrian people was an example as well. Brazilian people, Jamaican people, Palestinian people etc etc DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that both forms are used and I have no big problem with either but there are policy reasons to go with the more common and concise form. —  AjaxSmack  10:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both forms are "common" and "standard." Personally, I prefer the "X people" form and feel it reads better. If there's no reason given other than personal preference to move it, then oppose. SnowFire (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Both the nominator and I gave policy-based opinions (WP:UCN/WP:CONCISE). Neither of these are personal preference, at least on my part, unlike "I prefer the 'X people' form and feel it reads better". —  AjaxSmack  10:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not hiding the fact it's my personal preference. The nominator said "Common and standard form" which presumably implies "X people" is not an understandable "common and standard" name. This is simply wrong as a quick trip to Google will show. "Assyrians" is more concise, I'll grant that, but that is a comparatively minor factor here - it's equivalent in weight to article title stability, for instance, which would argue for keeping it here. SnowFire (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Move rationale has been effectively challenged above, and the other arguments to move seem to be purely personal preference. Against this, Assyrians is seriously ambiguous, being more often used to mean the people of the Assyrian Empire, as distinct from for example the Akkadians, who are also part of the Assyrian people but are not in this sense Assyrians. (There may even be a case for moving the article currently at Assyria.) Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I'm guessing that there are previous move discussions in the archives of this talk page... has anyone looked at them to see whether any of the discussion there is relevant? Andrewa (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Misinformed Information

((The Assyrians (Syriac: ܣܘܪܝܝܐ), also known as Syrians, Syriacs, Arameans, and Chaldeans (see names of Syriac Christians), are an ethnic group whose origins lie in ancient Mesopotamia. They are a Semitic people who speak, read, and write distinct dialects of Eastern Aramaic exclusive to Mesopotamia and its immediate surroundings.))

First chaldeans do not exist as ethnic group, some followers of the East Catholic Church since the sixteenth century started to called themselves Chaldeans, but they have nothing to do with the Chaldean dynasty that ruled Babylon.

Secondly Syrians (السريان) are not Assyrians, Ashourians (اشوريين, اثوريين), not the same ethnic group. Greek historians named the Arameans of syria (Syrian), The Arabs named All the Arameans(Nabat نبط) and Syrian سريان.. Nabat is Aramaic tribe, Nabataeans

Who call themselves Assyrians nowdays they don't descendants the ancient Assyrians(Ashourians), they are Syrians Arameans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.5.245 (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Syrians not Assyrians

The name "Assyrian" (Ashourians) is new name of group of Syrians, the name "Assyrian" is never used at all before the 19th century. the historical name to what is currently called the Assyrians are the "Syrians" (specifically "Syrian Nestorians) The new Assyrians they are not an ethnic group separate from the rest of Syrians. ethnically they were and still Syrians there is no different from the rest of Syrians. The only difference between the the new-Assyrians and the rest of Syrians is the Church that they belong to, and that was historically called the Nestorian Church.

The name "Assyrians" launched a on Syrians Nestorians for the first time in the 19th century under the influence of the British explorers and missionaries. The goal of launching this name on them was to try and separate them from their surroundings and find isolationist tendency among them.

In the 19th century the French persuaded the Maronites of Lebanon, that they are separate people from their surroundings. This is the same as what happened in the the Jazeera area. British persuaded Syrians Nestorians in the mandate of the people of Mosul that they separate from their surroundings and that they were the descendants of the ancient Assyrians. and of course Syrians Nestorians they are not ancient Assyrians.

Syrians Nestorians do not differ from the rest of Syrians. They originally Aramean people residence the Gezira area and northern Iraq since the last millennium BC.

That's why I deplore some of the Syrians use of the term "Assyrians" (including even in the official media, and this is a real disaster).

Assyrians are a extinct people had been living in Jazeera area 2,500 years ago.

Christians in Syria and Iraq belong to 3 peoples: • Arabs • Syrians • Armenians

What so called Assyrians is name of imaginary people invented during the 19th century under the direct influence of colonialism.

Syrians are citizen of the Arab Republic of Syria. A Suryoye u a Othuroye HA 'amo ne. Dlo furshono. 'Amo Hiro, Bas furshono, kolozamlan Hdoyutho.

We still speak the official language of the Assyrian empire which is an Aramaic language with its particularity, we still retain some names which are only found among us (such as Ninus, Shamiram, Sanharib...), we may be Arameans or Assyrians ethnicaly, but, today 'Syrians' means citizen of the Arab Republic of Syria, we can't use that name anymore. Assyrian is OUR name, we don't say that we're 100% ethnically Assyrians, since the middle-east has been invaded by a lot of peoples, there was mass deportation etc... it's the same for 'Syrians' Today Syrians are mostly arameans, armenian, greek, arabs, and Iranians for kurds etc... Most of north Iraq is ethnically semitic, Assyrians, Jews, Arabs, Syrians, and kurds... Also the people from our churches who are in Iraq, Turkey and Syria are in no ways Arabs. The few Arabs who could be in our church could be found in Israel, Jordan and may be Lebanon.

But I can tell you ONE THING, THOSE WHO SPEAK SURYOYO / SURYAYA ARE NOT Arabs, not Kurds or Armenians. Go and learn 7 names of your grandfathers before coming here and saying things which just aims at feed stupid peoples, stupid and false theories.

Our People is spread in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and, sorry to inform you but as a NATION, we are Assyrians, our most prolific nationalists, from Ashur Yausef to Ninos Aho, are celebrated by the people of the 2 mother church ('idto Suryeyto trisat shubho and idto dmadenho d'Othuroye) for there writing, there love of our language and nation, so please, don't divide us, English, Americans, Australian, and new-zealand know us as Assyrians. Syrians are, today, another people, they have there wiki page, and we, Assyrians have our own.that's all.'AynHaylo (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Too many pictures in the right-hand side infobox

There are way too many pictures of Assyrians in the infobox. Around six or nine people are enough. Does anyone else agree there needs to stop being additions?

I think that the more people we have (prominent people of course), the better. The template can be rearranged to accommodate lots of pictures, for example the template for Italians. Assyriandude (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Then can we make it look more condensed like the Italians page? Because ours is too spaced out now.

I added 1 column which removed a row. It looks much better. If more people are added, we can switch to the Italian page version. I just have to crop a few of the portraits so that they are all the same size. Assyriandude (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Economic demographics

I've read that the Coptic Christians in Egypt are generally more affluent than Muslim Egyptians. There appears to be a similar situation in Lebanon. Now what about the Syriac communities in Syria and Iraq? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Why Assyrian Nationalism Will Fail

Assyrians in Iraq are a minority; the majority of the Aramaic speaking Christians in Iraq are either Chaldean or Syriac, neither of the two claim to be Assyrian. There are Assyrians that are part of each church, do not confuse a pupil that attends the Chaldean Catholic/Syriac Orthodox Church, but calls himself Assyrian. Chaldeans are of Arab ancestry and Syriacs are of Aramean ancestry. Assyrians have nothing to do with ancient Assyrians. They are simply a group of Persian Christians/Armenians that were fooled by British Evangelists. They are Ah-Toor-A-Yah(Atoraya), meaning the people of the mountains, not Assyrians pertaining to Assur. Their issue is complex and they are bending the truth about the Christians of the Middle East, specifically the Syriacs and Chaldeans. They have nothing that proves that they are in fact Assyrian; the only thing they have is references pertaining to Assyrian Nationalists, which many have been successfully refuted by Syriac and Western scholars. They do not seek to unite neither of the groups, they simply wish to push their own agenda so that they can claim benefits from Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. Without Syriacs or Chaldeans on their side, they are unable to achieve any of their goals. They are not going anywhere in politics, the only threat they oppose is here on Wikipedia where they can misconstrued history. The joke is on them however because no scholar or researcher uses Wikipedia as a reference. They are a joke in Iraq and many of them ran during the seventies because their citizenship were stripped for being Iranians, which they truly are. Neither Syriacs or Chaldeans faced that issue in Iraq during the seventies. Many Assyrians speak funny Aramaic and Arabic. Their Aramaic does not sound like Syriac or Chaldean Aramaic; it sounds much like Persian than anything. They are not from Iraq as they have you believe, most of them come from Iran, but because of the Sykes-Picot Agreement many of them immigrated from Iran. They were considered as "ajam" in Iraq. The Massacre of Simele of 1933, was due to their fake Assyrian nationalism. The Syriacs and Chaldeans saved them from ethnic cleansing and this is how they repay them. They are much related to Kurds more than anyone in Iraq, this is apparent through their common mannerisms and nationalism, as well as their language, accent, and looks. Assyrians, please continue to disgrace yourselves, please, the more the merrier. The truth hurts. I feel sorry for your children because they are fed this fake idea of Assyrianization. Many of them will not know that they in fact are Kurds, Persians, or Armenians.