Talk:Assyrians

Recent edits and changes

@Bw02145 This is now the third time I've reverted mass changes you have made to the Assyrians article. Can you please explain your rationale for some of these edits? I feel many of these are unconstructive and significantly reduce what are otherwise important details about Assyrians as a people. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The assyrian flag is redundant, it is found in the identity section, alongside the other two flags which should be respected equally. Most ethnic group pages don't display a flag in the introduction Bw02145 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I've looked at some other ethnic groups pages (Armenians, Kurds, Arabs, and Turkish people), and I agree with this change. I've removed the flag from the infobox per your edits and have also added a general template about Assyrians as well. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bw02145 I can't agree to some of these other changes you've made. Particularly, you remove certain phrases and facts that could otherwise do without being removed, such as:

• Sureth and Surayt (Turoyo) having Akkadian influences.
• Information about the Christianization of Assyrians. I am concerned in general that this information emphasizes the East Syriac rite and seldom mentions the West Syriac rite affiliations in the Syriac Orthodox and Catholic churches.
• Assyrian communities existing in Australia and New Zealand.

Can you explain why you removed/edited these parts? PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing these up, i did not add that information about the east and west rites, i am only making it more concise. I removed the mention of new zealand as they do not have a notable population, at this point are we going to just say "the globe"?. Australia does not deserve a mention because they do not have a long-standing history of Assyrians and do not offer cultural autonomy and recognition unlike the United States, you can refer to the 21st Century section. And the akkadian influence is already mentioned in one of the lead paragraph, let's please try to remember Assyrians are a real modern people that aren't only associated with ancient Mesopotamian history Bw02145 (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I will address each point individually:

• Australia most certainly does deserve a mention. Their history with the Assyrian community is about as dense as other countries and they have a thriving community, why exclude Assyrian Australians from being mentioned? It just doesn't make sense.
• For the churches, it should be worded differently to show that Assyrians attend both East and West Syriac rites. The wording as it stands now implies that Assyrians are predominantly found in East Syriac churches, which isn't true given the SOC's size and the existence of the SCC. This should be accomodated for differently than how it is presently.
• The Akkadian influence should also be mentioned. What is the significance of the language shift from Akkadian to Aramaic that makes it worth mentioning these two specific dialects of Assyrian-Aramaic? That's where the Akkadian mention comes in, it's not about associating Assyrians only with ancient Mesopotamian history. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Why diddn't you bring up these east syriac bias issues when the edits were first made? I attempted to revert them as unproductive and you disagreed. My edits only made the sentence more concise because as it stands it reads as bad quality english. And I disagree that australia should be mentioned in the lead, we haven't even mentioned it at all in the modern history category, and I disagree that akkadian should be mentioned twice. The language is aramaic, we don't need to specify what influences are part of it, you can read the history section for that. Bw02145 (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Scholarly views on the origins of modern Assyrian identity

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article should not present descent from the ancient Assyrians as an undisputed scholarly fact. Several scholars have questioned or rejected the idea of direct ethnic continuity between the ancient Assyrians and the modern Assyrian community.

John Joseph’s ‘‘The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East’’ discusses how the name “Assyrian” acquired a new meaning among Aramaic-speaking Christians during the nineteenth century, particularly through encounters with Western missionaries, archaeologists and the rediscovery of ancient Assyria. Adam H. Becker likewise argues that nineteenth-century missionary activity in Iran played an important role in the development of a new national identity, with increasing numbers of East Syriac Christians beginning to understand themselves nationally as Assyrians. Aaron Michael Butts also describes the nineteenth century as the period in which identification with ancient Assyria was promoted and an Assyrian ideology developed within Syriac Christian communities.

J. F. Coakley explicitly rejected the modern ethnological connection with the ancient Assyrians.

I will be adding these scholarly views to the article in the future. In its current state, the article gives a very one-sided presentation of this issue and does not adequately represent the range of academic views found in the literature. More high-quality academic scholarship needs to be incorporated so that the article reflects the scholarly debate in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality and due weight. ~2026-52274-02 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The origins of modern Assyrian identity

Hi,

It’s actually true that many modern academic scholars do not view Assyrians as descendants of the ancient Assyrians or question this claim. Why are their views omitted in the article? ~2026-52898-81 (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

Please provide these sources. You dont have to pretend this isnt your alt, why not just use your real account if you're so sure in what you're saying? Bw02145 (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

recent assyrian subdivisions edits

@PresentlySuraye3 Hi, So I understand that this article is already pretty loaded but I don't see the iraqi-centrism of the modern chaldean identity in this article at all. I think it's important we don't normalize it and acknowledge it as a foreign concept. Additionally, that section is currently hard to understand for people who are assyrian and don't know or people who are new to the ethnic group. i would like to make it clear how and why these subdivisions exist and I can try to combine it into the already existing bullet points. Bw02145 (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Originally, Chaldeans and Assyrians shared the same ethno-religious roots in ancient Mesopotamia...Over centuries, this religious division fostered distinct communal identities...Unlike the mountainous Assyrians who arrived later and resisted assimilation, Chaldeans had long been inhabitants of the plains and urban centers of Iraq and their political elite adopted a strategy of state integration. By actively participating in Iraq’s economy, civil service, and cultural life, many Chaldeans came to genuinely view themselves as a component of the Iraqi nation rather than an isolated or separate minority group.

These writings in your paragraph make it sound like "Chaldeans" and "Assyrians" are two distinct ethnic groups, when we very well know that they are not. If you are sectarianizing "Assyrians" to mean only members of the Assyrian Church of the East, then the only difference between these two names is the religious affiliation. Not to mention, the way that Chaldo-Assyrians are written about emphasizes them in an Iraqi context, neglecting those from Iran and Turkey. The article you cited by Donabed also makes it clear that Chaldean identity arguments are exclusive to Iraqi Assyrian communities, so this paragraph does not write about these naming divisions with the whole picture in mind.

Oh, and saying Chaldean Catholic and Syriac Orthodox communities deliberately distanced themselves from the "Assyrian" political label is a nice segway into denying Assyrian continuity which can lead to distastrous comments such as this one. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Chaldean and Assyrian ARE separate labels, there are people who choose not to follow the Assyrian designation, as mentioned in the identity section already. If we deny this then we won't make any progress to resolve the underlying gap in knowledge. By explaining how persecution caused distance from the Assyrian label, we can justify the reasoning for it. Chaldeans and Assyrians are not a different ethnic group but there are subdivisions and it should be explained why. Bw02145 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Its important to acknowledge the iraqi-centrism of chaldeans in this article, because if we acknowledge it, we don't normalize it. And the previous context tells us why they adopted that stance. Bw02145 (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree that we need to acknowledge this history, and why this issue exists at all. I am moreso concerned with the way that you are writing about it. "Chaldean" and "Assyrian" are distinct labels, yes, but they do not represent distinct ethnic groups. Writing about why Chaldean identity exists while implying ethnic separation only leads to more confusion which could possible tread the naming dispute longer than it needs to. Besides, another reason why I reverted your edits is because there is already an article where this information fits better: Assyrian naming dispute, which I authored but have been delayed in trying to get it to GA status. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Etymology Section Sourcing

Hello there, I was reading into some cultural history and trying to wrap my head around the timelines for this whole naming controversy situation when I came across a contradiction on the article itself and a concern with the content and framing.

In the "Etymology" section it first starts with a rough summary of the etymology of "Assyria", but then goes on to say that "Sūryoyo" is derived not from any of the preceding information but from a greek word, and that it displaced the word "Āramya" as a widely used endonym. I had never heard of this before, and looked for more information, but nowhere else in the article, whether in History or Identity or the linked Subdivisions section, does it get mentioned again. The cited sources were the next place I looked, but those are both from non-english sources and unavailable online.

Looking into other pages, I see only brief references that indicate this etymology as being pushed by Aramean activists. From Terms for Syriac Christians we have "Views on endonymic (native) designations are also divided. Aramean activists are endorsing two terms: Ārāmayē (ܐܪܡܝܐ) and Sūryāyē (ܣܘܪܝܝܐ), but they are emphasizing that the second term was historically accepted as an alternative self-identification only since the 5th century CE, under the influence of Greek terminology", while from Assyrian Naming Dispute we have "Disputes and arguments have also arisen surrounding the use of the endonym "Suraye/Suroye" and/or "Suryaye/Suryoye". ...Those who advocate for an Aramean identity, such as Johny Messo of the World Council of Arameans, contest that the endonym is synonymous with "Aramean" due its usage by the ancient Greeks to refer to those who spoke Syriac." Both of which cite articles from the aforementioned Johny Messo, who in prior talk pages has been established to not be a credible/valid source. This etymology also is a non-sequitur to the above paragraph regarding the name of ancient Assyria, and in the end no etymological link is stated in the article between ancient Assyria, Ancient Assyrians, when the term was used or if it fell out of use, etc. There's far more information regarding the etymology of "Chaldean" on the page than there ever is for "Assyrian," which can be frustrating. I am not saying this etymology is invalid, but I have concern with how little information on it I can find and how the only references of it accessible to me seem to primarily present the etymology as solely pushed by Messo and the Aramean activists.

Returning to Terms for Syriac Christians, continuing where the earlier quote left off a second competing assertion by Assyrian activists is provided. Quote, "Assyrian activists are endorsing the term Āṯūrāyē (ܐܬܘܪܝܐ), and also accept the term Sūryāyē (ܣܘܪܝܝܐ), but they claim that it always represented just a slightly shortened form of the main designation for Assyrians. In the Assyrian Neo-Aramaic language, both terms are thus used: Āṯūrāyē ("Assyrians") and Sūrāyē/Sūryāyē ("Syrians/Syriacs")." Which is rather vague, while Assyrian Continuity Asserts that "Sūryāyā, which also occurs in the forms sūrāyā and sūrōyō,[13] though sometimes translated to "Syrian",[73] was coined as a self-designation by Mesopotamian Christians in Edessa some time after the 5th century AD, quickly gaining widespread usage in both what would come to be called West and East Syriac traditions.[74] This term ultimately derives from the ancient Akkadian term assūrāyu ("Assyrian")." (It actually says that more than once, the article seems to repeat itself a lot, may need to be edited for redundancy.)

So it appears there's two competing etymologies pushed by activists of opposing camps in the naming dispute. I fully admit that I lack the knowledge or experience to be comfortable editing anything myself, but in this case I got frustrated enough to think it worth bringing to the attention of folks here. I think it's a bit uncomfortable to have one of the competing etymologies presented as fact under the etymology section alone. I would suggest an edit to present both etymologies in context, similar to how they're paired in Terms for Syriac Christians. I hope this is not too contentious of a suggestion, and thank you for your patience reading through my concerns. ~2026-53960-78 (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2026 (UTC)