Talk:Assyrian people

Important notice: See Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board for editing disputes concerning naming issues. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Syriac) for guidelines. Do not edit-war over terminology. Instead, raise your issues civilly and seek consensus before implementing unilateral changes.

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 (45 K, Oct '07 - Jan '08) Archive 8

Population statistics

Hey, should we use this population chart? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when is Zenda (an obviously Assyrianist website) a reliable source? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you consider Zinda unreliable, that means Zinda is reliable and flawless. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 10:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No I dont think we should use it. I always emphisize on using census provided by each state. And if census date isn't available, then we look for other sources, like Zinda, etc. Chaldean (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's my point, we don't have census for many countries which this Zinda link covers. I don't see the problem. Benne is of course protesting as usual because it's Zinda and not Aramnahrin but I don't see how that is a problem since this isn't about the name dispute. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously Zinda claiming 400,000 Assyrians live in United States, isn't neutral. Chaldean (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, do you seriously believe there are only 82 000 Assyrians in all of the United States? That's just the recent census, and I seriously doubt every single Assyrian participated in that census. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are more then 82K, but we don't know exactly how much. Thats why I believe it is more apropriate to post most recent census. Its unfortunate the US does census only once very ten years, but oh well, we'll wait in 2010 to see what the population is. Chaldean (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion to use this Zinda link as statistics is not about the US census. I think it should be used where we don't have statistics available. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. Perhaps we can post all the smaller countries in teh Assyrian diaspora page. Chaldean (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use this report, one of the best, it deals with all countries so it is not biased. Also Assyrian population is much closer to this report than what is available elsewhere. This report tell us that there were 4250000 Million Assyrian worldwide in 1994, so if we apply annual growth rate %2.6 (Close to the percentage of Iraq) and end in 2007 we should have 5933413 Million Assyrian in 2007. Joe Warda (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 The Report
 http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=aii
 The tool to calculate growth 
 http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php


 I propose to change the total number of Assyrian worldwide on the front 
 page to 5933413 if nobody have any problem to discuss, show you're support 
 or show you're apposition.

POV

The article starts with "The Assyrians (also called Syriacs or Chaldeans; see names of Syriac Christians)...". It starts by saying that Assyrians are sometimes called Syriacs or Chaldeans, meaning that all Syriacs and Chaldeans are Assyrians. This is indeed POV. EliasAlucard also reverts the edits and keeps the pov-pushing, I suggest he stops that. The TriZ (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take it up with dab.[1] — EliasAlucard / Discussion 15:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. What part of our identity is not negotiable don't you understand? Chaldean (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it's great that User:VegardNorman, threatens with more persistent vandalism if the article doesn't conform to his world view.[2] I think this can get him banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Like you did in swedish wikipedia you mean Elias? And I dont really care who wrote it, im just pointing it out. And Chaldean, you should read about writing NPOV and what it means. What you think is the truth about the subject is NOT interesting, keep your radical thoughts of yours for yourself. The TriZ (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to follow your own suggestions. You keep your revoluationary thoughts out of here. What you do in Swedish wiki has no effect on other language Wikis. Chaldean (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would rather say their thoughts are reactionary, not revolutionary. And pointing to WP:NPOV, when you haven't even read it yourself, is pointless. There's no way that User:VegardNorman or User:The TriZ are in compliance with any serious wikipedia policy. They're just here to revert war and vandalise stable articles so that they can get it their way. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And why are you changing subject? Is it or is it not POV what is written in the start of the article? And have you or have you not reverted any edits of thtat POV start? The TriZ (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not. It is written with citations that Syrian is dirivited from Assyrian. Chaldean (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, what? Are you WP:STALKing me? Cause you always try to change subject when im asking serious questions about articles. Like your afraid of wakening up and realize, "hey, maybe im really not an ancient assyrian like all the objetive experts are saying". Neverless, the article opens with "The Assyrians (also called Syriacs or Chaldeans; see names of Syriac Christians)...", which is clearly POV when your assuming in the beginning of the article that Syriacs and Chaldeans are all Assyrians. The TriZ (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously what is your problem? Can you not follow? For the last time, the first sentence is not POV, because its backed with multiple sources in the article. Chaldean (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For once and for all, SYRIAC ARAMEANS ARE NOT ASSYRIANS, THERE ARE MULTIPLE NON-SUBJECTIVE EXPERTS (Sebastian Brock, Witold Witovski, Otto Jastrow, Bengt Knutsson and if course many more) SAYING IT, WHAT YOU THINK IS NOT INTERESTING AND SHOULD NOT BE REFLECTED IN THE ARTICLES. Sorry about CAPS, but maybe you can see what im writing then. The TriZ (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never actually read Brock state explicitly that we are Aramaeans, from a racial point of view. He has stated that we have an Aramaean cultural heritage, as in language. That's not the same as being an Aramaean and falls under WP:OR. Hopefully though, by the end of this century, the Aramaic language will be extinct and the curse of this language (i.e., the falsely reconstructed Aramaean identity) will disappear from the Assyrian people along with the neo-Aramaic language. Our Assyrian ancestors truly cursed us by adopting the Aramaic language. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 18:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep on dreaming, Brock has have lectures across the world about the Syriac Aramic heritage. But you probably have seen this [3]. Im sure that will answer alot. The TriZ (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So, what does a wiki encyclopaedia without much content and filled with amazon.com advertisement, have anything to do with this? The only one seriously working on this Beth Mardutho wiki, is User:Garzo,[4] And yes, I've seen it before; you still fail to realise that Syriac is not an ethnicity, it's a language used by an ethnic group, and the majority of this ethnic group doesn't identify as Aramaeans. And fortunately, it's not a dream, but a reality which seems inevitable at the moment that the neo-Aramaic language will die out. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You are funny in a unaware way, check this to [5]. The TriZ (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And the only one working on it is still Garzo. Yes, he's not the only one registered, but he's working on it pretty much alone. Again, what does Beth Mardutho have to do with this? Do they have an article about the Assyrian naming dispute? Why are you bringing it up here? Is this some bragging nonsense? How is Beth Mardutho at all relevant to this discussion? — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out that there are several highly educated experts saying that the Syriac people are not ethnic Assyrians. Showing that this article is strongly POV right from the start of it. The TriZ (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And there are more "highly educated" people saying that we are Assyrians. By the way, you guys don't own "Syriac". It's not yours. Whether you like it or not, a large majority of the Syriac-speaking Christians, identify as Assyrians. This is an indisputable fact. The entire Church of the East, identifies as Assyrians. That's around 500 000 to 600 000 or so adherents. Beside that, the Ancient Church of the East, identifies as Assyrians. The Chaldean Catholic Church, is divided, but a huge portion of it still proudly stick to the fact that they are Assyrians. The Syrian Orthodox Church and its Catholic counterpart, the Syrian Catholic Church, although not universally, identify as Assyrians. So what we have left is a tiny portion of the Syriac-speaking Christians, who reject their Assyrian identity, based on a mistranslation of Aram into Syria, in the bible. We have another group, of Syriac-speaking Christians, who seriously believe they are descendants of the Chaldean dynasty (which is more fiction than fact). All in all though, most of us, are of the opinion that we are Assyrians. Yes, there are those of us who disagree with this, but that's a POV without authority and held by an insignificant minority. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously reading what you are writting? "insignificant minority"? The Syriac Orthodox Church and its people identify as Syriacs (Arameans). Which are these "people" that are saying we are Assyrians. Yildiz? The Assyrian himself. Frye? The iranist with an Assyrian wife. Parpola? Who makes his living saying we are Assyrians. Brock has no reasons to say we are Arameans, with a MA at Cambridge, a Ph.D. at Oxford and also a fellow of the British Academy I personally trust him more than any of your sources. And as shown, he is absolutely not alone. Which is a proof of that many experts in the area are saying that our people are ethnic Arameans. So you saying "All Syriacs are Assyrians, end of discussion", is just silly and ignorant by you and a proof of how you are not suitable to edit these articles. Lay off is my advice, and I believe most people here agree on that (and spare ous all comments about user:VegardNorman's edits, you aren't better). I also suggest, which is the first thing I wrote, that the start of this article should be changed. The TriZ (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian Brock has close relations with the Syriac Orthodox Church. He has every reason in the world to bullshit our ethnicity. And please point out, specifically, where he has stated that we are ethnic Aramaeans. Until then, do not one more time repeat that statement. Claims of a cultural heritage is not the same as ethnicity. The ancient Assyrians and the Babylonians, had a Sumerian cultural heritage. But they were not ethnically Sumerians. Likewise, Americans today have arguably a Graeco-Roman cultural heritage, but guess what? They are neither Greeks nor Romans. Furthermore, Cavalli-Sforza, one of the best geneticists in the world, has stated in his DNA tests about the Assyrians: they are Christians and are possibly bona fide descendants of their namesakes.[6] I take that any day of the week over Brock. Brock's opinion is not interesting anyway. All he knows is church history, he doesn't know much beyond that. Believe it or not, but our roots aren't limited to early Christianity. By the way, I think you should read Fred Aprim's book the continuous saga (ISBN 1413438571). I'm reading it right now, and I can only say that we are beyond a shadow of a doubt, Assyrians. Oh and yes, the pseudo-Aramaeans are of course an insignificant minority pretty much only existing in northern Europe. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

From swedish wikipedia, "Syrologen Sebastian Brock hävdar istället att dagens syriska kristna inte har något med de forntida assyrierna att göra, utan att denna benämning uppstått de senaste 150 åren. Han hävdar också att folkgruppen har en arameisk identitet, och att benämningen assyrier "ignorerar det rika och varierade uråldriga arameiska arvet som alla syriska kyrkor har legitim rätt till"." Let me translate it to those who doesn't understand. It says Brock claims that todays Syriac christians has nothing to do with the ancient Assyrians, and that it is a term that has arosed the last 150 years. He also claims that the group has an Aramaic identity, and that the term Assyrians ignores the rich and vary old Aramaic legacy that all Syriac churches has legitimate right to. The TriZ (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Swedish Wikipedia is not an authority, and doesn't count as a WP:RS (especially, seeing how sv:Användare:Oromoyo has changed the numbers, from 1500 to 150 years). I happen to have the scanned image here, and Sebastian Brock, states that "Suryoye" is not an ethnic designation, but rather, a religious one. He claims that "Oromoye" is an ethnic designation, which is of course nonsense, since it's not even in use by 80% of the ethnic group in question. He also, quite obviously, doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, when he states that the ethnic designation "Assyrian" lacks historical context, because it clearly doesn't. Either he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's bribed by the Syriac Orthodox Church to conjure up lies (both options are actually possible). Try reading some other literature. I suggest you get yourself a copy of Fred Aprim's book. In that book, Aprim cites numerous scholars, historians, and many many other experts in the field, who clearly prove that the Assyrian ethnicity, is a reality. And there was no such thing as "Suryoyo Oromoyo" in the Ottoman empire. It was Suryoyo Othuroyo, as attested by Horatio Southgate, and the Armenian nation. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't think i can't mention more names, but it's just ridicolous to do so. They who call themselfs Suryoye are also Oromoye. In Sweden for example, in syriac language, you call a Syriac-Aramean Suryoyo and a Assyrian Othoroyo. Also there are some whom are called Assori. And suggesting that Brock is bribed or stupid, I just won't comment on that... The TriZ (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

move

I agree with the move. I have had it with the pathetic nomenclature nonsense. I frankly don't care that these people call themselves, but if they must make a spectacle of themselves by public in-fighting, we'll have to settle for a slash-solution. dab (𒁳) 15:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is extremely flawed, dab. You want them to cease their acknowledged vandalism,[7] by appeasing them and move the page to their preferred version, in order to make them stop the nonsense. This rationale is against Wikipedia policy, and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL is not at all common (only in Sweden, due to political correctness from the Swedish government) and moving this page would violate WP:COMMONNAME and you know that. I suggest an indefinite block on User:VegardNorman because he has acknowledged that if he doesn't get it his way, he will continue with vandalism. This should not be tolerated. Appeasing him with a move is not how Wikipedia operates. This is the same rationale Internet trolls like the Gay Nigger Association of America justified when they got their article deleted from Wikipedia; the choice between allowing their article undeleted on Wikipedia or unleashing more vandalism on Wikipedia if they didn't get it their way. It's the same thing with User:VegardNorman, and you dab want to give into it and relent for the sake of a vandal account. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with vandalism. Even the official US census files the group under under the slashy "Assyrians/Syriacs/Chaldeans". If that's the solution chosen by US authorities, it is bloody well arguable for the purposes of Wikipedia. If VegardNorman breaks the 3RR he'll be blocked like everybody else, but the move proposal has its merit. dab (𒁳) 16:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If were going to follow census, then the US is the ONLY COUNTRY in this world that does that. What about all of the other countries that lists Assyrian only? They are going to get powered by the US alone? That doesn't make any sense. For the last time, our ethnicity is not negotiable. This is so silly. Its like going to the Greek people page and suggesting it to move to Greeks/Macedonians. We need to all calm down and use common sense. Chaldean (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the edit summary of User:VegardNorman's last edit on the article: Let both groups be united. the term Assyrian/Syriac unites both groups and there will be no more vandalism, because now everyone is satisfied, or else the vandalism will continue..[8] How can this be tolerated? He's basically saying: do as I say, or else we will continue vandalising this article until I get it my way. That's beyond tolerance. Regarding the US census, that's no authority on this matter. The slash solution that was put forth was nothing but a politically correct compromise, without taking a stance on the dispute. Before that, all Chaldean Catholics, and all Syriac Orthodox Christians were categorised under Assyrian in the US census. What matters here is the authority of scholars, academics, Assyriologists, and other people with an authoritative insight on this ethnic group, and that's what we should adhere to. Very few, if any, calls teh ethnic group in question, "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac". It's either "Assyrians" or their ecclesiastical denominations' designation (i.e., Chaldean, Syriac or Assyrian). And according to WP:COMMONNAME policy, this article should be Assyrian on the basis of the common name: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL vis-à-vis Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (notice that I added "people" in order to single out references to the ancient ethnic groups by the same name(s)). — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Second time your deleting what im writting in discussions today. Seems you dont want people to see this [9], talking about user:VegardNorman should get endless banned. The TriZ (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Let other decide if it should be deleted or not, fourth time you do it now. The TriZ (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, follow the US census. But it will not put an end to the conflict. Next thing they will continue arguing about names of languages, genocides and whatnot. It is a pathetic waste of energy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this article should not follow the US census. It is a pathetic waste of energy. — Couldn't have said it better myself. And it's equally pathetic to move this article to Assyrians/Syriacs because it won't stop from there. In any case, WP:COMMONNAME applies here, not the US census. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 20:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The point here is, the US census is subject to change and should not be considered an authority on this because there are many other censuses conducted by other countries, and they don't list the ethnic group, after religious denominations. "Chaldean", is a religious denomination. Likewise, is "Syriac", a religious denomination (even though, it originally has a different etymology). The ethnic group in question, is Assyrian. DNA researchers, Assyriologists, historians, and many other experts, simply do not call this ethnic group, "Assyrians/Syriacs". We Assyrians dislike this compound name, for many reasons. We don't want to be bunched together as "Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs/Aramaeans/Phoenicians/" because it looks stupid. The notion that this compound name would achieve unity is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Also, the US census is very politically motivated. A good example is how "white" was replaced with "European American" in the 1970's. This is, obviously, because of political reasons and Wikipedia has no obligation to cater the US census for not being able to make up its mind. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is purely about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), not about "negotiating ethnicity". It is irrelevant what the "Assyrians" are called in Bulgaria, beucase that will be in Bulgarian. We are interested in what they are called in English. I daresay the official US census is a notable source for this question. Assyrian people is an arguable title, but it is unacceptable to have this discussion dismissed out of hand as invalid by partisan editors. The US census uses the slashes in the interest of neutrality. We should, nay must, consider similar solutions, for identical reasons. The US census calls them "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people", which is as authoritative and as neutral as any English language source you're likely to find. dab (𒁳) 12:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The US census, a few years ago, listed the ethnic group, as Assyrian. This applied to Chaldean Catholics as well as Syriac Orthodox Christians. After pressure from religious leaders (mostly from the Syriac Orthodox Church, but also some from the Chaldean Catholic Church), the US census was changed in order to appease a few religious nutjobs. And English Wikipedia is not solely an American Wikipedia. It's an international Wikipedia. The compound name is rarely in use by the ethnic group itself, and it shouldn't be used here either, because that's not how this ethnic group is called in colloquial speech, and neither by the experts. Kevin B. MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist, in his research, calls this ethnic group, Assyrians. Cavalli-Sforza, a DNA researcher, in his DNA tests, calls this ethnic group, Assyrians. Simo Parpola, an Assyriologist, calls this ethnic group, Assyrians. Academic and scientific study, calls this ethnic group, Assyrians. That's what Wikipedia should reflect. Not politically correct appeasement of religious denominations. And the US census is simply not common, and the way US authorities handled the issue, they should be ashamed of themselves for not investigating further into the matter, but rather chose a "neutral" compound title. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 13:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"a few religious nutjobs" is your view of the dispute. A dispute in which you are very much involved, as is well known. WP:COI. I am agnostic which term is "better", "Assyrians" is certainly arguable, as is "Syriac Christians" and other possibilities. "Assyrians" is misleading, because it leads to confusion with the ancient Assyrians. Since it is also (hotly) disputed, a compromise solution like the one of the US census seems best. It's really irrelevant to anyone but the involved fanatics, but sadly we'll have to settle for some title. Elias, I ask you once again to stop to bring up irrelevant items like genetics or Assyriology into this question of nomenclature. I will ignore any further posting mentioning Cavalli-Sforza or Parpola: they have nothing to do with this. dab (𒁳) 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We are interested in what they are called in English - They are callled ASSYRIAN in English! Obviously you ignored the google results to prove that. I think you don't even know what was the main reason for the US Census to move to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac. The biggest push for this was done so by American Maronite Lebanese leaders who refused to be listed as Arabs. So actually, changing it would be even more wrong, since this page does not deal with Maronites. In reply to your comment of because it leads to confusion with the ancient Assyrians - there is no confusion, it is perfectly clear why today Assyrians call themselves Assyrians - because of connection to the ancient Assyrians. THe article explains this later, with sources and there (the Assyrians) view and notable scolars that back them up, as well as neutralizing it by bringing the other side of the arguement as well (rejecting the identity.) Once again, I strongly disagree with the name changing. Chaldean (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what the "Assyrians" are called in Bulgaria - English is the offical language in Canada, and in there census they use Assyrian alone. It just doesn't make sence for the US statistics beraue to be the mother of all answers. Chaldean (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Elias, I ask you once again to stop to bring up irrelevant items like genetics or Assyriology into this question of nomenclature. I will ignore any further posting mentioning Cavalli-Sforza or Parpola: they have nothing to do with this. — Is this you acting professionally, dab? How can you state that genetics and Assyriology is irrelevant in an issue like this? It's extremely relevant to the matter at hand. Whether you want to accept it or not, this naming dispute is not at all, exclusively about a title to designate a group of people ("Unicorn (ethnic group)"; your proposal, sarcastically implying that we are a fictional ethnicity). It is about, lineage and descent, first and foremost. The name issue is a result of the question of descent. The US census listed the ethnic group as Assyrian, for decades. Even as far back as the late 19th century, all Syriac Orthodox Christians (which was the predominant Assyrian stock in America at the time), were listed as Assyrians and were proud of it. The US census is not static, and could likely, change back to Assyrian any time soon. Bottom line is, there should be an article entitled Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac, but it should be on topic and about the US census and the controversy that arose out of it when Assyrian was changed to "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac", not primarily about the ethnic group. There's a lot of sources we can glean from and write an article out of regarding the US census. Fred Aprim writes about it in his book, Zinda Magazine has written about it, and I'm sure there are some documents available somewhere from the US government regarding the US census. "Assyrians" is misleading, because it leads to confusion with the ancient Assyrians. — With this rationale, you should propose a name change on the article, German people, because it's misleading and leads to confusion with the ancient Germanic tribes in Magna Germania. Come on, seriously? Since it is also (hotly) disputed, a compromise solution like the one of the US census seems best. — No, Assyrian is not at all hotly disputed. No one has really managed to successfully prove that we are not the descendants of the ancient Assyrians. This compound title is just yet another attack on Assyrians and it's just another way to make it appear (in a misleading way) that we aren't Assyrians. Wikipedia should reflect authoritative research regarding this ethnic group, such as, Cavalli-Sforza and Parpola. Not appease religious nutjobs for the sake of political correctness. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The amazing world of semantics. The letters tree map to a notion. The notion maps to an entity.

"sarcastically implying that we are a fictional ethnicity" -- you didn't understand a word I was saying. Time for you to read up old de Saussure and get a grasp of a neat little idea known as l'arbitraire du signe. I really see no point in debating any further on this level. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dab, but I don't happen to be a mind reader, and I certainly cannot read your mind. We have an article, entitled European American. This, mostly because of the US census. THere's a very good case to have an article entitled Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs, but it should not be this one, and it should be about the US census (which is arguably a notable event as far as the US census is concerned). — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

DNA Section

Assyrian DNA section is totally inaccurate in my opinion, where it refers to them being the natives of Iraq. The actual sources do support that Assyrians are a totally different ethnic group from Arabs, but it also shows that Assyrians are genetically closer to Jordanians than Iraqis, and there is no proof what so ever that they are the sole Natives or even the actual decendant of the Mesopotamian people, rather that they are genetically closed, ethnically differentiated and genetically very close to Jordanians.

This does not constitute proof of them being decendants of the Mesopotamian people - rather almost contradicts that with their genetic and ethnic closeness to the Jordanians who are not Mesopotamian people. Also, aramaec is not the original language of the Assyrian people untill they were converted to Christianity in the 'Aramaicisation' period were they extensively intermarried with the Aramaic populations of the Levant, supported by many ancient texts. The populations of Mesopotamia have themselves also extensively intermarried, so they should at least share some closeness to the Arabised Mesopotamians from Babylonia in Iraq oif the are indiginous mesopotamians which they don't. I removed that section untill reliable sources can be given. Thanks. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

and there is no proof what so ever that they are the sole Natives or even the actual decendant of the Mesopotamian people - the proof is the language they speak. That goes without saying. You don't need a source to prove Assyrians are indeginious to the region. Thats like wanting prove Greeks are indegenious to Athens. Chaldean (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Language DOES NOT constitute race nor ethnicity, they are totally different things. It is similar to saying that Spanish-speaking Latinos are indiginous to Spain, it is totally wrong. Also, Aramaic was NOT the language indiginous to the area of nothern Iraq, but rather the Levant, thus Jesus speaking it, so by your point, they are rather indiginous to the Levant. Thanks. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about. You must not be aware that Aramaic became the lingua franca of Mesopotamia and Persian empire. Assyrian kings from 1362 BC and forward spoke only Aramaic - from Nineveh (Northern Iraq.) And, yes, language for what defines an ethnicity (look at the article.) Universal languages such as Spanish and English are totally a different situation. Chaldean (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No Langua Franca itself does not constitue ethnicity, ethnicity is defined by race please read THAT article. Languages come and go, and change offen, just like they did in Assyria, so are no evidence of racial relationship. Arabic and Kurdish are now the lingua franca of that region, so how do we know their language did not change again? Plus there IS NO genetic proof that they are the actual decendants of the original Mesopotamians, and THAT is what constitutes ethnicity, not a language which most probably stayed with them due to religion as with most of their culture. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are really disturbing and I'm beginning to think your a suck-puppet. Chaldean (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nabuchadnessar's reverting is disruptive, but the points he's making about language are sound. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No they are not. The user outright claims there is absolutly not proof of connection between the ancient Mesopotamia and today's Northern Iraq. Yet the page has clearly balanced the two sides (for and against) with credible sources that the user is removing because its crap. Chaldean (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read a bit more closely, Chaldean--I said that the points he's making about language are sound. What language a group speaks today isn't necessarily evidence of its genetic affiliation with an ancient group that spoke a related language. As for "ethnicity", that's mostly a matter of self-definition (or group definition, I guess I should say), but good luck trying to get anyone to adopt an impartial position about ethnicity on Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Akhillus for rewording my views better. I stick by my opinion and wont do any more distruptive edit. I would like to dispute the neutrality of this article as many sources are from Assyrian nationalist or Assyrians themselves were in our culture it is so much grander to think of oneself as being decendants of an ancient people. I also believe this article is suggestive of that they are indeed decendants merely on bases of language, without balancing that out with the alternate opinion of language has no relations to genetics (in this case I believe it is more to do with religion). This article also fails to clearly point out that there is no conclusive genetic data (ie comparing modern assyrian genetics with those of ruins - if any exist). Merely being different genetically does not automatically mean they are decendants of the ancients, and besides which it's a fact that most Mesopotamian peoples became assimilated with newer peoples, so why are assyrians so different? I just got a message saying I'm suspected of sockpuppetting or whatever. I'm new here and would appreciate help on what to do to prove that otherwise and place somesort of complaint against whoever wasted my time. Many thanks. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't reply to your message until the results for sockpuppeting come out. And now I am even further confident that your VegandNorman. Chaldean (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, you accuse everyone of being puppets? If you seriously believe this user is VegardNorman, then truly there is something wrong with you. By the way, Chaldean wrote this about VegardNorman before, "Now, this user as well is his possible suck puppet User:The TriZ..." The TriZ (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks The TriZ for that info, I appreciate it. Although I have written on the case page that I believe these allegations are frivilous, I am more than glad to do an IP check or whatever to prove these allegations are wrong, even if it slightly compromises my privacy. Thanks. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know what to do next with the sock-puppetree case. Can an admin please help me what steps to take next? If I do the IP check and it comes out negative, am I entitled to lodge a complaint against Chaldean? And finally if Chadean continues to refuse to discuss here until the sockpuppetree case is finished, how do I go about editting it as no-one else seems to disagree. Many thanks in advance Nabuchadnessar (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Population

SvD (Svenska Dagbladet) says that there are 80.000 "Syrianer"(Syriac-Arameans)/Assyrians living in Sweden, not Assyrians. It is generally known that there are more Syriac-Arameans then Assyrians in Sweden. This article is about Assyrians. Not Syriac-Arameans. Therefore the population written in the infobox is wrong. The TriZ (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just double checked that source, and I agree, it does say "Syrianer".Nabuchadnessar (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Europe is tricky, since most countries don't take ethnic cencus, let alone having a reliable source. Earlier in the project, we pledged that we would only use offical census from each nation, and to the ones that do not have census, the most reliable source available should be used. Chaldean (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean Chaldean, but I think you should find the right sources before making the statement - rather than writing what appeals to you then going out to find the sources which is inaccurate and unreliable - and will end up making the whole of Wikipedia a free-for-all. I suspect this is what has been done in the majority of this article. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Syrianer" is Swedish. The common English term is "Assyrians". Same thing. The Swedish article is at sv:Assyrier/syrianer. This would correspond to a compromise solution like Syriac/Assyrian people on en-wiki. This is just terminology, the group referred to is one and the same. dab (𒁳) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)dab,

"Syrianer" is the Swedish word for those who refers themsels as Syriac-Arameans. Those whom call themselfs Assyrians are refered in Swedish to "Assyrier". The TriZ (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In Sweden, what about those who don't identify themselves with neither Assyrian or Aramean, but rather just Syriac (Suraya/Suroyo), what do they call themselves in Sweden? Chaldean (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no word for that in Swedish. There are some people who doesn't care about either they are Assyrian or Aramean if course, but in Swedish they would call themselfs either "Syrianer" or "Assyrier". Basically the word "Syriac" is translated to "Syrianer", though the word is used by the Aramean faction, so the Assyrian faction would never accept calling themselfs that. "Syrianer" in Sweden aren't calling themselfs "Araméer", though they identify with them. The TriZ (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

sigh. this is about an ethnic group that cannot agree what to call itself. The problem is discussed at names of Syriac Christians. The introduction to this article cannot do better than just list the proposed names. It is completely pointless to just keep removing those names you dislike. I know this is a dispute, ok? Wikipedia will just remain neutral and list such names as can be traced to reliable sources, end of story. dab (𒁳) 13:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Move to new title

The most neutral title for this both articles (Syriac-Aramean people and Assyrian people) would be Syriac People, because of both groups accept the term Syriacs, but not all accept term Assyrian. Syriac-arameans only accept the terms Syriacs, but the group Assyrians accept both terms Syriacs and Assyrians. And also, the name of the both groups in Syriac language is Suryoye, wich means Syriacs in english. Term Othuroye means Assyrians, and only a minority of both groups accepts that term. Majority of Assyrian group call them selfs for Suryoye (Suryaye) wich means Syriacs... Syriac-Arameans, Syriac-Assyrians, Syriac-christianity.. i think the most neutral and common title and to unite all groups would be Syriac people instead of Syriac/Assyrians or Assyrian people. And then articles like this one, Syriac-aramean people, Western Syriacs, Eastern Assyrians etc will redirect to this new title "Syriac People". VegardNorman (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For every 1 person that consideres himself Aramean, there are 100 who consider themselves as Assyrian. So the arguement of trying to make the title neutral is not so strong enough. The Assyrian ethnicity is not negotiable - simple as that. Chaldean (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a brave statement Chaldean. The TriZ (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should stay where it is, but should deal only with those people who call themselves "Assyrians". We need a separate article for the modern Aramaeans, and a common article for the Suryāye (which should be titled Syriacs, in my opinion), which should include much of the information currently presented in the Assyrian people article.

This would not come down to POV forking (dab's standard argument for not having separate articles), but just a plain presentation of the facts. Any other solution would inevitable result in new articles anyway, because Assyrianists would never settle for a common article named "Syriacs". --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. VegardNorman (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

the problem, dear Benne, is that you don't have the necessary sources to support that suggestion. Show me one encyclopedia that has seperate entries for the "Aramaean" and the "Assyrian" groups. Show me one census for that matter. How are you going to write articles no ethnic groups if you have no sources to base them on other than argumentative blogs by random zealots? The main misunderstanding is that the title "Assyrian people" is not informed by Assyrian nationalism, but by traditional English usage. "Assyrian people" is a term used in English for Syriac Christians, no matter what their individual flavours of nationalism, and this group is what this article is about. See (see!) the 1910 quote by Wigram given under Names_of_Syriac_Christians#Exonyms.

Because the article will never have peace under the present title, we should move it either to Syriacs, or to Syriac Christians, or to Syriac/Assyrian people, take your pick. It doesn't matter what number of editors on this talkpage "agree" to creating various unsourced articles on semi-imaginary ethnic groups, as you don't present reliable sources defining these groups (census data, encyclopedia articles, etc.), there is no way to implement that. WP:V is not negotiable.

I take it, Benne, that you opt for a move to Syriacs. The article you want under Assyrian people is presently under Eastern Assyrians. Those are the "Nestorians". It is possible to have an article on those, but "Assyrians" in English includes all Syriacs, not just the Nestorians. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab, this article has been peace under the present title, but you seem to be theo only one who doesn't feel confrable. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of Syriac-Speakers acknowledge of identifing of being Assyrian. To bring that down, because a small group in Northern Europe has a different view on the subject, is a weak arguement. That is the reason why this suggestion to move this page has been rejected multiple times. Chaldean (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

you don't want to understand what this is about, do you. Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Syriac). Come back once you have made a good faith attempt to understand the issue. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I perfectly understand the issue and your the one who seems to want to start lighting up a match. Benne's suggestion is a good idea, but you seem to have made up your mind and go with it. BTW, Benne, I think the page Names of Syriac Christians can be good enough article that unites all the group as one. I don't think we need yet a saperate article titled Syriacs. It wouldn't be a problem if we moved that page to Syriacs too, maybe as well. Chaldean (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the most neutral for all groups wold be "Syriac people" VegardNorman (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The term “Assyrian” is more common than the term “Syriac”. Search Assyrian http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=Assyrian&btnG=Search and you get 80 news. Search Syriac http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=Syriac&btnG=Search and you get 36 news. Assyrian people is perfect. Kaldaya (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Vegard, we don't have to force something. Of course Syriac people is more neutral, but that is simply not a representation of the real world. The English world knowns the group mostly as Assyrians. To change that is simply trying to make Wikipedia an athority on this issue. Wikipedia should only explain the subject, not try to intervine. I backed your idea of creating Syriac-Aramean page, but unfortunatly Dab has become very athoritive and now is even trashing other members with his bad tone. Chaldean (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "Assyrian people" has been common from about 1910. Since the Assyrians themselves have started their weird infighting over the term, usage has changed. The US census now uses "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" to include everybody. If we want to be neutral, we should move this page to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. I don't like this slashy solution any more than the next guy, but you have to blame the Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs we are forced to use it. They must be the only ethnic group that cannot agree what to call themselves. Frankly, this strikes me as rather pathetic. Since that's how it is nevertheless, let us use the "political correct" US solution. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Assyrians hit counts in google may refer to the ancient assyrians. The term syriacs is 50 years old, and is representhing all christians in middleeast (Syriacs-arameans, assyrians and chaldeans). (Syriac christianity). The real name was Syrian, but because of Syria was created at 1950, the term Syrian may also refer to the arabicmuslims in Syria. Therefore they changed the name to Syriacs. VegardNorman (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab's Beginning sentence

also called Syriacs, Syriac-Aramaean people, Syriac Christians, Suryoye, Syriacs/Assyrians, Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans

First of all, Syriacs is Suryoye, so why is it listed twice? Second, Syriacs is Syriac Christians, so why is that listed again? Third, if you said Assyrians and Syriacs, why would you bring them up again as Syriacs/Assyrians? By stating Syriacs alone, you are basically saying Syriacs/Assyrians. Forth, where have we agreed that this page includes those who call themselves Aramean? Chaldean (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

because "Syriacs" and "Suryoye" aren't identical. One is English, the other anglicized Aramaic. Do you understand the term "synonym"? These are all terms used synonymously. Why do you complain about their all meaning the same thing??? See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Syriac) for the sources for these synonyms. See Names of Syriac Christians for why "Chaldean" is not a synonym:

In 1910, William A. Wigram in his An introduction to the history of the Assyrian Church wrote: "Chaldean would suit admirably; but it is put out of court by the fact that in modern use it means only those members of the Church in question who have abandoned their old fold for the Roman obedience"

now stop reverting perfectly sourced material. You are acting purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and your restoration of "Chaldean" as synonymous flies into the face of every source cited here, at Names of Syriac Christians and at Chaldean Christians. The disruption is entirely on your part. Sure, we are both reverting, but I can state why, based on actual sources, not gut sentiment. I assure you if this nonsense goes any further, I will request that WP:DISRUPT is invoked, this article is locked down or put under probation, and any revert not solidly explained on the basis of academic sources is blockable as disruptive. Start showing some basic good faith. Request sources for any synonym you feel is included incorrectly (use {{fact}}). Stop restoring "Chaldean" as a synonym until you can cite a good source that claims it as one. dab (𒁳) 14:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you have to threaten people? By your mentality, we should also add Ashuraya and Atooraya. Your not even replying to my questions. What is the difference between Syriacs and Syriac Christians? Sources? What sources justifying mentioning Assyrian and Syriac, and then bringing them up again as Assyrian/Syriacs? Chaldean (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, do you speak English? At all? Because it doesn't appear you have read anything I explained to you. If you can CITE' an English language source using "Atooraya", you are free to add it as another synonym. Please, please try to find out what "synonym" means. Please try to find out what "exonym" means. Please, for the love of puppies, read Wikipedia:Naming conventions to get a basic understanding of what this discussion is even about. dab (𒁳) 14:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to answer my questions? State the difference between Syriacs and Syriac Christians. Start with that. BTW, your answer of because "Syriacs" and "Suryoye" aren't identical. One is English, the other anglicized Aramaic. is still false. Ask all the Speakers of the language here on wiki (including a mod User:Garzo); Suryoye is the Syriac word for Syriacs. I have 580 non wiki pages using the exact sentence of Assyrians also known as Chaldeans [[10]]. Give anything that states Assyrians also known as Assyrians/Syriacs. Your edits are simply wrong. You accuse me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, umm how about your edits are not following up with the criteria of other Wiki pages? The Greek people page has a section titled Greeks#Names_used_for_the_Greek_people - I don't see them writing every single different name in the beginning sentence. That would be very disruptive of the page, and thus they moved all these names down in the article.

Chaldean (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab, I really think you should change your tone, which I find quite condescending ... I consider remarks such as "Chaldean, do you speak English? At all?" to be rather incivil. I doesn't matter if you're right or not, try to stay civil. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

well, he could show some signs of cognition and good faith, and my tone will improve immediately. At present, he is just filling this page with non sequiturs. Is there anyone I can talk to who can actually refer to the points I am making? Benne? I will be glad if this can become an actual debate. I am not holding my breath for Chaldean to make any sense. He has pulled the same stunt on Talk:Chaldean before: if you don't have a point, just keep ignoring the issue until they give up in frustration. (Benne, what can I say? I am not here to "discuss" on the level of skulking preschoolers: Dab: "please look up synonym" - Chaldean "Why do you refuse to answer my questions? State the difference between Syriacs and Syriac Christians." -- wht??) dab (𒁳) 09:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Synonyms

to Chaldean (talk · contribs): look it up.

Assyrian can apply to any Syriac Christian (Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac-Orthodox, Syriac-Catholic). Syriac consider Suryoye, Suroye, Suraye, Kaldaye, Kaldanaye, Kaldoye, Atoraye, Ashuraye, Athuraye, Othuroye, Oromoye. Chaldean means Chaldean Catholic. It’s enough if we have it like this The Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans, Syriacs, see names of Syriac Christians[17]) Kaldaya (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Euler diagram showing B: "Syriacs"="Assyrians"="Syriac Christians", A: "Chaldeans"="Chaldean Catholics", being a subset of B.

it is common practice on Wikipedia to state the most common synonyms. We can discuss which exactly are important enough to mention (that is, as soon as we get some peace from the trolls). Distinguish:

• Synonyms: Syriacs, Syriac Christians, Assyrians, Suryoye, Assyrian/Syriac, Syriac/Aramaean
• Subgroups (true subsets of the above): Chaldean, Chaldean Catholic, Syriac-Orthodox, Syriac-Catholic, Nestorian, Jacobite, etc.
• the "problem": "Assyrians" is sometimes understood to refer to "Nestorians" exclusively. (really?) -- This is the case on Wikipedia talkpages and on nationalist blogs, but I have yet to see a WP:RS that does the same.

can we agree on this? yes? good. Now we need to decide which synonyms we mention in the lead, and which subgroups we list in the lead after we have introduced the group as a whole. Good? Then let's hear your suggestion. dab (𒁳) 09:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

google count (with definite article to find English usage only):

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (2690)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (2670)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (1500)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (820)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (491)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (319)

ok, I suggest that we use either Syriac Christians or Syriacs or Assyrian/Syriac people as the main title, since these are apparently the most commonly used names. The other three variants can be listed as synonyms. I suggest that good cause will need to be presented to list other synonyms (usage in reliable sources). dab (𒁳) 09:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

1. True, Chaldaean should not be considered a synonym of Assyrian and/or Syriac, but rather a subset. At least, I've never heard of Syriacs not belonging to the Chaldaean Catholic Church being referred to as Chaldaeans. But considering the fact that the Assyrian people article in its current stage intends to refer to all Syriacs, it might be defendable to include a reference to the Chaldaeans in the first sentence or at least the first paragraph, since part of the Chaldaean Catholic do not wish to be called Assyrians but Chaldaeans.
2. Coming to the question of synonyms regarding to the Syriac people, we enter slippery territory. Syriacs (Syrians, Süryani, Syrianer, etc.) is often used to include people from both the West and East Syrian traditions, sometimes only to refer to the West Syrian rite churches.

   Here again you guys make leaps you are unaware of. Süryani, Syrianer, and Suroye (not the Suryoye which only came into use in the past 50 years) were ALWAYS used as equivalants to Assyrian. I suggest you read Donabed and Donabed, The Assyrians of Eastern Massachusetts, (Arcadia 2006) as it is mentioned and illustrated quite nicely there.  

1. Assyrians is used to refer (1) in the most narrow sense, to members of the Church of the East, (2) to members of the Church of the East and of the Chaldaean Catholic Church, (3) and, since relatively recent times, in the widest sense to all Syriac Christians, sometimes including even Maronites.
2. Aramaeans is used in a similar way as Syriacs, either referring to the West Syriacs or to all Syriacs together (e.g. the researcher Sébastien de Courtois or the Syriac Universal Alliance (website currently down) which considers Syriac and Aramaean to be synonyms. However, since Assyrianism has gained ground among the West Syriacs as well, I suppose many would consider the term Aramaean only appropriate to those Syriacs who refer to themselves as Aramaeans.

     Im sorry but I must correct this. Sebastien de Courtois in his dissertation written in French used the term Syriacs. Not Arameans. He later used Arameans in the English title simply in order to garner interest as (check the date) the passion of the Christ had recently been released. 

1. N.B. And of course, the terms Aramaeans, Assyrians, and Chaldaeans are also used to refer solely to the ancient peoples, but since modern Aramaeans, Assyrians, and Chaldaeans believe themselves to be the continuation of those peoples, that would come down to the widest sense I just mentioned.
2. Hence the question of which term is synonymous with which depends on who you ask, I'm afraid. But besides the question of which term is used synonymously, we should also consider the question what connotations the various terms have. The fact that "Assyrians" might score more Google hits, should not be given much weight in this discussion, in my opinion (scholarly works might give a better indication).
3. I'm afraid none of the names will be totally satisfiable, although I believe Syriacs would be the most appropriate, since it is a direct translation of the Syriac word ܣܘܪ̈ܝܝܐ. Or perhaps a transcription like Sur(y)āye could be used, or a somewhat awkward construction like Syriacs (Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldaeans), or Aramaeans/Assyrians/Chaldaeans/Syriacs. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

excellent, we are getting somewhere.

(1): indeed. I do not object to their mention in the lead at all. In fact, I insist the three major groups (viz. Nestorian, Jacobite, Chaldean) should be named right up front.

(2) "Syriacs" in my understanding is only used to refer to adherents of Syriac Christianity (east and west) as a whole. As far as I am aware, we are not at present citing any source that uses "Syriacs" for Jacobites only.

(3) You may be right about "Assyrians". If we use "Assyrians" in the sense of "Nestorians", we need to move or split this article presto. At present, this article is about the entire Assyrian/Syriac group.

(4) "Aramaeans" is indeed only used for the Jacobite group afaics, except by partisan websites etc. I appreciate your reference to the bibliomonde.com source using araméo-syriaques for the entire group. Similarly, German Aramäer is used for the whole group, but I am not aware of this usage in English. Let's settle the question of English exonyms first.

(5) of course. That's a matter for disambiguation. "Syriac" has the advantage of not doubling as a term for a pre-Christian population.

(6) we cannot google for "Assyrians" of course, because of a gazillion hits that will come up relating to the ancient empire. That's why I googled for "Assyrian Christians" to get an idea. Sure, the "google test" is only good to get a rough idea. Reliable sources trump that any time. Google scholar hits favour "Assyrian Christians" (67) followed by "Syriac Christians" (47) and "Syriacs" (35).

(7) I'll be happy with a move to Syriacs. All things considered, this seems to be the clearest, least ambiguous and least controversial term for the group.

(8) We'll still need to decide what to do with "Assyrians" I would appreciate if you could provide some reference for your points (2) and (3). dab (𒁳) 10:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

1: Alright, but let's not use the terms Nestorian and Jacobite. Perhaps we could refer to those terms as "historically also called ..."), but that should in my opinion not be included in the lead. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

2: I have no sources, but heard among Syriacs in Turkey that they say about East Syriacs: "They're not Süryani, they're Asuri". It might have to do with the fact that the Western rite churches carry the name Syrian or Syriacs, whereas the Eastern rite ones do not. There is however one more ambiguity, especially with the term Syriac Christianity: it also refers to Maronites, and to the Syriac churches in India, the adherents of which are no Syriacs in terms of ethnicity.

3: Well, let's do nothing pronto here, since the term Assyrians is quite ambiguous.

4: I don't think we have the luxury of confining ourselves to English-language sources or to the Anglophone world only. Various Greek and Syriac (also East Syriac) sources state the identity of Aramaeans and Syriacs. And much of the philological research concerning the Syriacs has been done in German (Nöldeke, Sachau, Mommsen, Hegewisch).

5: True, not as far as I know.

6: Still, I believe we should be very careful using Google hits. Also, foreign-language sources should play a role here.

7: No objection ... ;-)

8: I think it should stay where it is, being a branch of the Syriacs article. The Assyrians have so many organisations, festivals, carry their own flag, etc., I think they deserves their own article. We should just be careful not to create double information. Much of the history they have in common with other subgroups. And I presume there are also Assyrians who don't identify themselves with Syriac Christianity; if that's the case, it should be respected. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(2) - we really need to restrict this to English usage. We can address details of vernacular self-designation later, once we've fixed the titling issues. (4) - I know. English languages sources are merely relevant for the question of article titles, which need to be in English. The article bodies can of course be informed by any number of non-English references. (8) what "Syriacs article"?? Syriac people redirects here. This is the Syriacs article, the question is merely what title it should have. There can still be sub-articles on "Assyrian identity" or what have you. I think you are actually saying we should rename this article, and branch out all material pertaining to "Assyrian identity" to a sub-article. Now, Benne, if there is anybody calling themselves "Assyrian" who do not identify with Syriac Christianity, we are looking at yet another group entirely. Perhaps Assyrian neopagans or role-players? This would be an entirely different topic. "Assyrians" as used in this article is simply a synonym of "Syriac Christians". dab (𒁳) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

proposed lead

informed by the above, I propose the following lead. This incorporates all information on terminology we have gathered so far:

The Syriacs (also called Syriac Christians, Assyrian Christians, Suryoye, Syriacs/Assyrians, Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans and other variants, see names of Syriac Christians) are an ethnic group traditionally characterized as adhering to various churches of Syriac Christianity and speaking Neo-Aramaic languages. Their geographical origins lie in what is today Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria, but since the early 20th century, many have migrated into diaspora.

The Syriacs comprise three major sub-groups:

• the Western Syriacs or Jacobites, sometimes also called Aramaeans, adhering to either the Syriac Orthodox Church or the Syriac Catholic Church
• the Eastern Syriacs or Nestorians, sometimes also called Assyrians, adhering to the Assyrian Church of the East
• the Chaldean Christians or Chaldeans, adhering to the Chaldean Catholic Church

Note that the population of 3 to 4 million is that of the whole group. If we take "Assyrians" to mean Nestorians only, their number needs to be given at below half a million. The Jacobites appear to number around one million, the Chaldeans just below one million. Don't ask me how this adds up to above three million, perhaps we are including one or two million of "ethnic Syriacs" who have converted to Islam? dab (𒁳) 10:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some objections: Aramaeans should be included in the lead. Syriacs who identify with the ancient Aramaeans, use this name also in English. Also, please refrain from using the names Jacobites and Nestorians, which are considered pejorative nowadays; they should only be used for historical reasons, not as modern labels. That's why I'll revert your recent edit to Western Syriacs: they are not a religious group, since they include Syriac Catholics and also some Protestants, but should rather be described as an ethnic (sub)group. Furthermore, I don't see the point in including combinations like "Syriacs/Assyrians", "Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans". I'd suggest something in the line of: "Syriacs (also called Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldaeans)" --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 12:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: Chaldaeans are also considered Eastern Syriacs. The CCC is a spit-off from the CotE, but their pronunciation of Syriac and the alphabet they use is the same. (Garzo should be able to give some more insight in this.) --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 12:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with that, as long as we can come up with some quotable source. Remember, I have no stakes in this at all, nor do I have any opinion on which term is "correct". Can you propose a modification of my proposal above that would address your concerns, ideally citing pertinent sources? I have fixed the Jacobite / Nestorian articles to be ostensibly about the group that is in fact reported in the infobox. dab (𒁳) 13:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Under what conditions have we agreed to move this page? This page should not be moved until it has gotten the concent from the rest of the Wiki community. Dab you continue to show your understanding of the topic with this;

the Western Syriacs or Jacobites, sometimes also called Aramaeans, adhering to either the Syriac Orthodox Church or the :Syriac Catholic Church the Eastern Syriacs or Nestorians, sometimes also called Assyrians, adhering to the Assyrian :Church of the East the Chaldean Christians or Chaldeans, adhering to the Chaldean Catholic Church

FIRST OF ALL, There are more Syriac Orthodox/Catholic who identify themselves as Assyrian, rather then Aramean. So to state that the only ones who call themselves Assyrians are Church of the East, is false. Chaldean Catholics also identify as Assyrian (I'm one one them.) You are forcing your idea on the issue once again dab. Also what do you mean somethimes also called Assyrians? They are mostly called Assyrians. When you first stared this, you emphisized on using the most common term in the English Language. The fact of the matter is, Assyrians is still today more common then Syriacs in the English language. Until you can prove otherwise, then this page should not be moved. Chaldean (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, calling the Assyrians "Syriacs" is simply a move to satisfy some Assyrians who belong to movements which only in the last century have moved away from the name Assyrian, and are motivated by religious names, not ethnic ones. It is tantamount to calling oneself "Roman" instead of Italian to specify religious identity. Syriac is a derivation of the word "Assyrian", as we have seen from linguistic and historical studies. Syriac is an English word created to avoid the term Assyrian. "Suryoyo", "Surayeh", "Suryayeh", are simply derived from "Assurayeh" and all mean Assyrian. "Syriac" can refer to the language, but not to the ethnic identity of this group of people.14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Waleeta (talk)