Talk:Assyrians

Revision

Govvy, you reverted my edits to this article, but there is absolutely no way you have found an issue with each of the dozens of edits that were made. If you have a specific issue then make your case, but anyone comparing the two versions should agree mine was better. Bw02145 (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Really now? I don't mean to be rude, but the article lead felt deconstructed and the style of the English became that much poorer for it. Govvy (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

So your issue is only with the lead yet you reverted like 20 edits that go beyond just the lead. And right now the lead is redundant and messy. Bw02145 (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I have kept the lead but brought back the other edits. I'm not assuming you are not educated on the topic but it is reckless to mass revert all the edits. Bw02145 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I strongly suggest to you, to not be disruptive and breach certain policies. Govvy (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

"without a sovereign state"

In the lede, we say: "Despite long historical continuity, they remain the only indigenous Middle Eastern Christian group without a sovereign state." I find this truly puzzling -- I don't think it's accurate to say that any Middle Eastern Christian group currently controls or forms a majority of a sovereign state? What are we trying to say here? And what does "indigenous" mean in this context -- are we saying other Middle Eastern Christian groups are not? Jfruh (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I totally agree - they are not the only such group. The sentence was introduced by user:Bw02145 in this edit; perhaps they would like to comment. Bw02145 has no user page, but the user seems to exist still, and has a talk page, User talk:Bw02145. Nø (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

That is what the source says and it is accurate, assuming armenians are not part of the “middle east”. Where is the confusion? Bw02145 (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with majority. Coptics are egyptian, and egyptians have a sovereign state. Same with Lebanese christians. Bw02145 (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

What source says this? There's no reference tag on the sentence. And the comparison to Copts or Lebanese Christians doesn't clarify things. Iraqi Assyrians are Iraqis in the same sense that Copts are Egyptians -- they are an indigenous group different from the dominant ethnicity but have nationality/citizenship of the modern state. I certainly wouldn't say the Copts "have" a state in any sense that Assyrians don't -- Assyrians aren't stateless, they just happen to live in and be citizens of several different states. In fact, Lebanese Christians are in the same boat -- Greek Orthodox Arabs live in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Palestine, so in what sense do they "have" a state and Assyrians don't? Jfruh (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I have included the reference, thank you for pointing that out. Iraq is not an Assyrian state. Coptics are Egyptian, and Egypt is Egypt Bw02145 (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

You're just talking in circles and the linked article also makes the exact same assertion without really explaining it. How do, e.g., Greek Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox people living in the Middle East "have" a state in a sense that Assyrians do not? --Jfruh (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Theres nothing to explain. Who is greek orthodox? Lebanese have lebanon. Like i really dont get where the confusion is if you understand by christian group they are referring to christian ethnic group Bw02145 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

There are plenty of Greek Orthodox is Jordan and Syria too. I don't understand why a Greek Orthodox citizen Syria is a "Syrian" but an Assyrian citizen of Iraq is not "Iraqi." They're both religious minorities who are citizens of the states they live in. There are lots of different kinds of Iraqis (Sunni Arabs, Shi'ite Arabs, Kurds, etc.) so why aren't Assyrians Iraqis? Jfruh (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Iraq is not an assyrian state. It is arab and kurdish, the other minorities are not christian. Greek orthodox jordanians have jordan. Assyrians are STATELESS Bw02145 (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you understand that assyrian is an ethnicity? And they dont all come from iraq Bw02145 (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I do understand that they are an enthnicity. I question what you mean by "have" when you say "Greek Orthodox Jordanians have Jordan." You say Iraq is "Arab and Kurdish" -- according to whom? Is this written into the Iraqi constitution? My understanding is that in theory all Iraqi citizens are supposed to be equal under the law. In what sense do Arabs and Kurds "have" Iraq but Assyrians do not?

"Stateless" can mean a few different things. Assyrians are not stateless as individuals -- they are citizens of the states in which they reside. There are Iraqi Assyrians, Syrian Assyrians, etc. There's no Assyrian-majority state but that is not unique for minorities in the Middle East. I know you said earlier that Copts "have" Egypt, but the country is literally called "The Arab Republic of Egypt" and Copts aren't Arabs, so how do they "have" it? Jfruh (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Arabic and kurdish are official languages and both groups have autonomy. And assyrians iraqis in the diaspora do not have rights to citizenship by descent, it’s not their country! Greek orthodox jordanians are arab and jordan is an arab state. Coptic people are deeply rooted in the internationally recognized state of Egypt. The very word "Copt" is historically derived from the ancient Greek word for "Egyptian". Bw02145 (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

But explain please how iraq (and i guess not syria turkey or iran) IS a sovereign state for assyrians, even though only a minority are actually iraqi Bw02145 (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Have to agree with Jfruh here, the sentence is very misleading as Copts, Maronites and other Levantine Christians also lack sovereign states that are specifically for them, because even Lebanon is (at least since the end of the civil war) for Lebanese of all religions, not just Christians. I also don't think the wording of the sentence actually adds much to the article. It could easily be rephrased to something like "Despite long historical continuity as an indigenous Middle Eastern Christian group, the Assyrians lack a sovereign state." and I think that would satisfy everyone. Last edited by: (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

No its not satisfactory because assyrians are the only christian middle eastern group without a sovereign state, #PERIOD. That is what the reference says Bw02145 (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I love how these are the concerns when someone just recently added Mesopotamia to the lead paragraphs as if its a modern place? Bw02145 (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The edits by truthinmesopotamia are more unproductive and just bad quality english. Bw02145 (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree that the statement seems wrong. The reference @Bw02145 added on the 29 May 2026 is Boháč, Antonín (2008). "Globalization and its impact on culture" (PDF). Globalization Studies Center, Osaka University. Retrieved 16 March 2026. though it should really be Boháč, Artur (2010). "Assyrian Ethnic Identity in a Globalizing World" (PDF). Beyond Globalisation: Exploring the Limits of Globalisation in the Regional Context. Ostrava: University of Ostrava Czech Republic. pp. 67–72. Retrieved 5 July 2026.. I've corrected the reference. The closest sentence I could find in the reference is "Assyrians are the only autochtonous Middle Eastern Christian group without own state" on page 68; I note the word 'sovereign' is not used. I note that the other reference in the lead---Minahan, James (2002). Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: A-C. Greenwood Publishing Group.---lists Assyrians along with Copts and Maronites as stateless nations. A lot may depend on how each author is defining 'stateless' and also possible "Middle East". I would be inclined to go with an author who is surveying stateless nations and published a book via an academic press rather than one concentrating on a particular group published in a conference paper. Erp (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

My sentence seems to be implied by the original wording regardless, the synonyms are reasonable. As mentioned, if armenians are not considered middle east then the point stands. But there is no other ethnic group of christians in the region without their own state Bw02145 (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Other than Maronites and Copts as the other source indicates. If you want you statement to remain, you need a good secondary source that explains why the Minahan source is wrong with listing Maronites and Copts as stateless (or indigenous). Armenians btw do have a state, Armenia. Erp (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I am aware armenia is a state, but they aren’t always considered middle eastern. And another point you are failing to understand is that maronites are not an ethnicity. And if you care this much about copts then we can change it to say “west asia” Bw02145 (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

In which case you have no source to support the changed statement. Erp (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Copts and maronites are generally understood as religious or ethnoreligious communities within existing nations, whereas Assyrians are generally understood as a distinct indigenous ethnic people without a sovereign state. Under that definition, the claim is substantially accurate. Bw02145 (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

"Commonly understood"? By whom? Do you have good sources (good in an encyclopaedic sense) for that? Nø (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

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)