Talk:Syriac people
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Moving
editIn order to use this page more properly, I think we should move it to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac. What do you guys think? Chaldean (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think it will be best like this. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Syriac is English for Suroyo/Suraya which means Assyrian.--Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
No. No sources. Sorry. The TriZ (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to direct Syriac to Aramean. Syriac is inclusive in "Assyrian".--Am6212 (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Why not say that Americans and Swedes are inclusive in Assyrian to... The TriZ (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Because those aren't church names in the Assyrian community.--Am6212 (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Churches in the Assyrian community?! Stop this nonsense. The Syriac Orthodox Church, which is the biggest of the Syriac churches, do not even accept the Assyrian name.
Dab, your current version of the article is unacceptable. Syriac people is not a part of the Assyrian people, it is the opposite. The articles in Wikipedia has been manipulated a long time by users like user:EliasAlucard. The Assyrian people isn't in majority. The Syriacs are. It would be like calling all Germans for Swiss. The TriZ (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is this a joke or what ?.. Suryoyo = Syriac. Othuroyo = Assyrian. Syriac people is not "Assyrians". AramaeanSyriac (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not a joke. Read WP:NPOV. Yes, and Suryoyo is a neutral word. Even people calling themselves Assyrians call themselves Suryoye in their mother tongue. Calling yourself Suryoyo doesn't mean you identify yourself with the Arameans.
The Assyrian people isn't in majority. The Syriacs are. What do you mean with that, TriZ? Shmayo (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Germans and Swiss are completely unrelated. Syriacs, Chaldeans, and Nestorians use the inclusive term "Assyrian".--Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Suryoyo othuroyo, you don't know what your talking about. Shamyo, I'm on the same page as you here. Syriac is an umbrella term that is used by all in the group, what Am6212 and Suryoyo othuroyo is saying here is that Assyrian is the umbrella term. They are saying that Syriacs are a smaller part of the Assyrians. But in fact, it is the opposite. If course, most people who calls themselves Syriacs and "Suryoye" believe in the Aramean identity. But it is a term, that also those who believe in an Assyrian identity can refer to themselves as. The TriZ (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The Syriac church is multi-ethnic containing Assyrians, Arameans, Indians, etc. "Syriac" is only inclusive in terms of religion. "Assyrian" is inclusive in terms of ethnicity containing Syriacs, Chaldeans, and Nestorians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryoyo othuroyo (talk • contribs) 04:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Can user:Suryoyo othuroyo stop redirect the page to Assyrian people? Above all because of that Syriac people mostly refers to Aramean-Syriacs. The TriZ (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
That is definitely POV without supporting facts.--Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't throw with words you have no understanding for. Sources that shows Syriac people aims at Aramean-Syriacs, [1], [2], [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. The TriZ (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Websites about church and language are not evidence. No mention that we mostly say Aramean. Sorry. And I can cite just as many. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryoyo othuroyo (talk • contribs) 03:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I didn't just link to fanatic sites like you just did. I linked to different news-agencies and other sites showing that Syriacs aims at Aramean-Syriacs. The TriZ (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Your links provided nothing.--Suryoyo othuroyo (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Because you did not read them. The Syriac people article should redirect into the article Aramean Syriac people, and not to Assyrian people. The Syriacs are Arameans, check the Aramean-Syriac people article for sources. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have here provided sources that shows that Syriac people aims at Aramean-Syriacs. I therefore suggest that "Syriac people" doesn't redirect to Assyrian people, if someone doesn't agree, then please state your case. The TriZ (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- For a change, I am on Triz side regarding this, but don't agree what he is saying. Syriac is what the Syriac Orthodox Church has decided to translate Suryoyo/Suraya/Soroye/ into English as Syriac, rather then Syrian. Now, who calls themselves Suryoyo/Suraya/Soroye? Practically everyone, from every Chruch demons (even thou our people in the middle east mistakenly translate the word to Christians.) So, I think it would be best to be re-directed to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. Since we are not too sure what the reader is searching for. Chaldean (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Then you are agreeing with me, I'm not saying it should redirect to the Aramean-Syriac article, I'm saying it shouldn't redirect to the Assyrian people article. And Dab just reverted the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people page to a redirect to Assyrian people... again. Check the history of this article to, Chaldean, it was a disambig page before, since the other disambig page was fully-protected with a redirect to Assyrian people. But again, Dab and Am6212 (talk · contribs) and his other suckpuppets kept redirecting the page. The TriZ (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Also I want to point out Chaldean that I believe your doing wrong when you equal Suroye with Suryoye. It is not the same, from what I've understand, Suroye was the term used by ALL Syriac Christians in Turkey (and probably most other parts of the Middle East) while Suryoye is used only by those whom call themselves Syriacs (Arameans). This is also showed by the TV-channels Suroyo TV and Suryoyo Sat. The TriZ (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- As you know, dab is known for screwing things up when it comes to our topic and making them more complicated. Unfortunatly, this is what happens when we fight amongs each other and have someone who has little knowledge of the issue and make the decision for us. I tried before to teach everyone here regarding this issue, to TALK and DISCUSS something before making a major edit or move. Regarding Suroye/Suraya and Suryoye - your right in what your saying, but it doesnt change the fact that its still the same word but only being orally said differently- right? Iraqi (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Come on, guys! Suroye was the term used by ALL Syriac Christians in Turkey (and probably most other parts of the Middle East) while Suryoye is used only by those whom call themselves Syriacs (Arameans). That is not true!
- Hundred years ago everybody called themselves Suroye. Just see the movie Nuri Kino made about Seyfo. They were interviewing survivors, and all of them used the term Suroye. Shmayo (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Shmayo, I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Read it again. Oh, and about the Nuri Kino documentay, when they spoke in Turkish they said Suryani, and what did they translate it to? If course to Assyrian, cause Nuri Kino is an biased Assyrian nationalist, and with that said i'm not saying he isn't a good journalist, only that his biased and doesn't care of objectivity when it comes down to the name issue. The TriZ (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- The term "Syriac people" is more neutral than "Aramean-Syriac people" and the controversial term "ASsyrian people". And its not a cfork. all sources in the article mentions the term "Syriac people" and not "Assyrian people". AramaeanSyriac (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Title
editThe title of this article should be "Aramean people" not "Syriac people" and "Syriacs" should be redirected to "Syriac Christianity".--24.248.39.186 (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Make a proposal, seek consenseus. i agree with you but you have to start a case. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
back to redirect
editthis page was a recreation of the deleted content fork at Aramean-Syriac people (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean-Syriac people). You want to move that article, participate in the move discussion. --dab (𒁳) 11:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- where is the move discussion? AramaeanSyriac (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Assyrian_people#Article_name.2C_strawpoll. --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
stop it now, ok? Mere stubborness isn't a substitute for presenting an actual case. --dab (𒁳) 17:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Not to be redirected to "As/Ch/Sy people"
editThe name of the article us fully incorrectly and it contains large incorrect information, giving confusion to the reader. Since Syriac (Syrian) is proved to be a synonym to Aramean/Aramaic, it should not be redirected to that article. Term "Syriac" is also used to coin in all those who call themselves for "Suryoye/Aramoye", but also those who are Syriac christians and/or speaks the Syriac language. The Syrian Christians in India has nothing to do with the ancient Assyrians. JeanVinelorde (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- This I agree with this. Now that we can re-create this page, the Assyrian people article can be moved back to its original name. Iraqi (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I saw that 1 year ago, wikipedia had two different articles; One named Assyrian people and one named Syriac people. What happened? JeanVinelorde (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
these are two names for the same group. Wikipedia happens to have many editors who subscribe to Assyrianism, so we end up with articles called "Assyrian" rather than "Syriac". A valid compromise solution would be to settle for slashed "Assyrian/Syriac", but the Assyrianists are eager to shoot down even that. Wikipedia cannot have two articles on the same group just because it is known by two distinct names. See WP:CFORK for that. This entire thing appears to be the hobby horse of expatriate Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden in particular. We settle for the compromise "Assyrians/Syriacs" whenever possible, mirroring the Assyrier/Syrianer of the Swedish authorities, but the pov-pushers never tire of trying to find ways around that. --dab (𒁳) 10:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Source cleanup
editIf anyone will take this page seriously then we really need to find good sources, not what we have so far. An example is replacing all sources which talk about the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Church with sources which talk about the Syriac People themselves. Let's start with sources [24] and [25]. From there we see the topic is not about the Syriac People, but rather the members of the Syriac Orthodox Church ... we need to find sources for the population of the Syriac People!! Malik Danno (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
"Syriac people" is another name for the "Assyrian people" (and vice versa). Whatever "good sources" you can come up with, they should be presented at the main article. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 11 November 2014
edit| The result of the deletion review is that Syriac people should remain as a redirect to Assyrian people. Problems with the Assyrian people article can be addressed through normal editing and through discussion on Talk:Assyrian people. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||
|
The article Syriac People, is automatically being redirected to the article Assyrian People. The article Syriac people is also being protected preventing the redirection from being removed. The resulting article "Assyrian people" is made up of attempts to assimilate the word Syriac with the word Assyrian. and Syriac people with the term Assyrian people. Historically the two terms are distinct, however recently the a shift Assyrian political thought is to attempt to absorb the Syriac identity into it's own. Despite the wishes of the Syriac people or the Aramean people for that matter. Currently the Wikipedia page Assyrian people is a representation of Assyrian POLITICAL aspiration and not a historical representation of the modern day Assyrian or Syriac people. Sr 76 (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Sr 76 (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC) For the suggestion to be that the page "encapsulates" is exactly problem, only highlighting my point the redirection is yet another attempt to ASSIMILATE the Syriac People under an Assyrian Identity. For the benefit of the Assyrian Political movement. There is nothing on the "Assyrian People" page that is remotely Syriac or Chaldean, only Assyrian propaganda. When anything is added that is not Assyrian propaganda, it is undone and labeled as vandalism. In other-words there is a very distinct need to have separate pages, to maintain the integrity of the resource. So far as the edit protection is concerned: This issue of identity has been played out for generations between the Syriac People the Assyrian People and the Chaldean People. The idea of reaching a consensus is simply not possible. For example there is no instant redirection from "Macedonians" to "Greeks", it would simply be one-sided and highly offensive. The fact that the redirection from "Syriac People" to "Assyrian People" needed to be protected demonstrates no consensus and a level of offence caused by the redirection to the Syriac people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr 76 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 12 November 2014 Appologies, i didn't sign the above comments.Sr 76 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
No response. I can't establish a consensus when there is no response to the talk. Sr 76 (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC) OR considered consensus reached.Sr 76 (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Sr 76 (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: You want me to chase-down a debate that will never reach a consensus, just so I can maintain my basic human-rights of identifying me and my people with the identity of my ancestors? Was this done when the edit protection for the redirection was put in place? Sr 76 (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: Looking through the links about this "consensus" made, it was a debate that raged on for years even on Wikipedia. Then ended with a vote that lasted a 5 days. This was purely politically motivated. The argument of WP:FREESPEECH would make more sense without the redirection, and the page "Assyrian People" wasn't a representation of a singular political movement, where every edit not matching that representation was instantly deleted.Sr 76 (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC) From an academic point of view, it is indeed sad that Wikipedia cannot be trusted as a reliable source on the history, language and broader identity of the Aramean people who are otherwise known as Syriacs. "Aramean; Aramaic" is the originally Semitic self-designation of the Aramean people and language, whereas "Syrian; Syriac" is the name the Greeks applied to the Aramean people and language at about the 4th century BC and the Arameans themselves form the late 4th/early 5th century onward adopted, in their native Aramaic (Syriac) dialects, as Suryaya/Suryoyo. It is deplorable that Wikipedia has been hijacked by self-styled "Assyrian" hobby-historians and nationalists, trying to Assyrianize the past, present and future identity of the Aramean people and language. All experts know and accept this for an undeniable fact. Again, it's sad that in Wikipedia, which is an otherwise great medium, they have found a very effective tool to mislead lay people. Academicians will not bother and waste their precious time in correcting all the "Assyrian" propaganda that has inundated Wikipedia in the last years. LindaK1960 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Propoganda from the Assyrian movement! We are not Assyrian, we are Arameans (Syriacs, Syrians or Chaldeans). Wikipedia should be smarter than that! The pages should be separated and the edit protected removed!Trueandfact (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC) The term Syriac/Syrian people was a designation by the Greeks for the Aramaic/Aramean people. This is a well proven and established historical fact. As such it is absolutely incorrect to refer to the Syriac/Syrian Aramean people as "Assyrian". The "Assyrian" designation is nothing more than a deception of grammatical terminology to sure up numbers for political motivates. The Syriac/Syrian Aramean people have for centuries and continue to refer to themselves as Syriac Aramean and clearly distinct from the "Assyrians", and hence should not be subjugated to external politically motived influences that are racially discriminatory. Assyrianism and the term "Assyrian" as a designation to a modern day people, was the fruition of a political movement that grew out of the British, Church of England missionary work in the Middle East in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Prior to this period the people of the area referred to themselves as Syriac/Syrian. Aramsuryoyo (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC) This is utterly ridiculous. In our language, we ALL identify ourselves as "Suryoyo/Suraya" which is the same thing. The matter of debate comes into hand when you translate this term. There is no need for a separate page, as all are the same people. There are almost no cultural differences between a "Syriac," "Chaldean," "Assyrian," or "Aramean" besides doctrinal differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 November 2014 If there exists a people that can trace their history back to the Arameans, have always and continue to refer to themselves as Aramean (a distinct people from the Assyrians historically)but have been referred to as Syrian by the Greeks, then why is Wikipedia denying their distinct ethnic identity? Arameans do not deny being referred to as Syrian/Syriac, but have always known that term was used interchangeably with Aramean/Aramaic. Syrian/Syriac has always meant Aramean/Aramaic to the Syrian Arameans themselves as well as historical scholars. Why is Wikipedia ignoring these people? The term Syrian was used by the Greeks to identify the inhabitants of an area that was ethnically Aramean not Assyrian. This is very clear, by the simple fact that in any language that refers to the Syrian people "Syrian" there clearly exists a distinct term for the Assyrian people "Assyrian". There is no language that does not distinguish between the Syrians and the Assyrians. Also the fact is that all historical references to the Assyrian people is in a past tense. In other words "Assyrians" were always referred to as a people that existed in the past, never in contemporary terms. So again I ask why is Wikipedia not listening to the voice of the Aramean people that are referred to as Syrian or Syriac and that are undeniably distinguishable from the "Assyrians"? Aramsuryoyo (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC) It doesn't matter what "Assyrian people" or "Aramean people" think -- scholars and historians consider Suryoe/Suraye to be ONE group people. What are these "distinguishable" differences you speak of? There are almost NO differences between a Suroyo/Suraya from Urmia, Iran and a Suroyo/Suraya from Damascus, Syria. comment added by Penguins53 (talk) You have completely contradicted yourself, if the issue is surrounding the translation of the terms "Suryoe/Suraye" and it's only relevance is what "scholars consider". The scholars consider, then the translation of the words Suryoyo/Suryaya is Syriac, NOT Assyrian. In the Syriac language the word for Assyrian is Ashuroyo, not Syriac. Sr 76 (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC) If groups with separate identities, separate flags, separate national agendas and separate political representation are the same people then where do you draw the line? Should the page "Australians" [1] be deleted because Australia is a British colony with English ethnic heritage. Highlighting the page "Aboriginal Australians" [2] as a content fork, because the page "Australians" exists, an it exists with the sub heading "Indigenous(Australians)" would be completely inappropriate.Sr 76 (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Translation of the Term Suryoyo into English S.J Louis Costaz, Dictionnaire Syriaque-Francis, Syriac-Englih Dictionary: Suryoyo/Suroyo (ܣܘܪܝܐ / ܣܘܪܝܝܐ) Syrien, Syriaque [in French], Syrian, Syriac [in English] [3] D.D.J Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible: Syria/ Syrians – See Aram, Arameans. [4] R. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary Suryoyo ( ܣܘܪܝܝܐ) a) Syrian, Palestinian, Chaldeans i.e. ancient Syrians. b) Syriac. [5] References
Sr 76 (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Why should we as Arameans have to accept a redirect that misinformation people about our history and heritageHddmwq (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Arameans/Syriacs and not Assyrians - I do not understand what right one has to redirect pages. How can this stop? Thank you 1history1 (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Penguins53, let me clarify. The Greeks referred to and labeled our people as "Syrians". The Greeks had the term "Assyrian" ("Assyrius")in their vocabulary, but they did NOT refer to our people as "Assyrian"("Assyrius"), they (the Greeks) clearly and undeniably distinguished us from the ancient "Assyrians". We referred to ourselves as Arameans at the time not "Assyrians". This can not be denied, the Bible itself attests to this. The Greek translation of the Bible from Hebrew clearly translates the name Aram to Syria and Aramean to Syrian. The name Assyria remained Assyria and the name Assyrian remained Assyrian. So the point I am making is that name Syrians was in reference to the Arameans NOT the Assyrians. I agree with you totally, we have for centuries and continue to call ourselves Suryoyo/Suryaya (Syrian in English) because we are one people, but we have for centuries used to name interchangeably with Oromoyo/Aramaya (Aramean in English) because it refers to us as the one people, Syrian/Aramean NOT Assyrian. The term Assyrian came into existence as reference to a contemporary people in the early 1900's for political purposes and not for any historically proven reason Aramsuryoyo (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC) @Penguins53:, Your original argument was based on translation of the word "Suryoyo". Since the term Suryoyo (ܣܘܪܝܝܐ) in Syriac-Aramaic clearly translates into "Syriac/Syrian" in English and other European languages, as per the references delivered above. We must also considering the term "Aššūrāyu" (ܐܫܘܪܝܐ) translates to "Assyrian" and NOT "Syriac" and NOT Chaldean making your argument incorrect. Everybody else has offered their consensus I think you should too. Sr 76 (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
We have reached a consensus. The only opposition had been from @Penguins53:, but he/she seems to have abandoned his/her stand, based on the arguments and references presented on this page. Please have the edit protection for the redirection of "Syriac People" and "Aramean People" and "Chaldean People" lifted with the pages restored. Sr 76 (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This is utterly ridiculous. There should NOT be a separate page. You, yourself, stated that Suraye/Suroye are one people, as did I, but you keep insisting there be a separate page for "Aramean people," which does not make sense. The current page encapsulates the various terms and is sufficient. Any other extensions would be superfluous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 30 November 2014
@Penguins53: If that comment is directed to me, then that is not the case. My exact wording was: "the terms Suryoe/Suraye". In future please don't misrepresent what i wrote. Secondly, you have not acknowledged the issue of scholarly translation that you yourself had raised. As evidenced by the references provided the word Suryoyo/Suraya translates into Syriac in English. The word Ashuroyo/Ashuraya translates into Assyrian in English. The very first line of the page "Assyrian People" contradicts this. Since the page is not much other than a political representation of what Assyrians wish their history is, The page does not "encapsulate" any term correctly not even the word Assyrian. Sr 76 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This is definitely not a simple name conflict among the Syriac Christians or Suryoye (Chaldeans, Assyrians, Arameans, Maronites,...). There are a lot of Suryoye from Syria, Turkey and even Iraq who relate their racial identity, history and ancestors on the Arameans, while the others relate their racial identity, history and ancestors on the Assyrians. A German will not become a Swede and the other way around. Arameans and Assyrians are two distinct ethnicities. I am talking about the nations of ancient times, not the modern ones, and this is the main reason for the conflict! Syriac-Arameans do not want to be considered as a sub-nation within the so called Assyrians. In Israel, the Syriac Christians are now recognized as ethnic Arameans. Yes, you heard it right as Arameans not Assyrians or even Syriacs! We have our own parties and organizations who represent our Aramaic nation to the world. Penguins53 I followed your edits on Wikipedia for a while and you often falsified statements or replaced the term Aramean with Syriac or Assyrian and redirected it to the Assyrian people page to avoid Aramean as an ethnic identity. You also added "Assyrian" as an ethnicity for the Aramean Christians and Muslims in Maalula (See Infobox Western Neo-Aramaic article from 12 September 2014). You and your kind are getting ridiculous. When will you add the Eskimos to your Assyrian nation? Even the Yazidis have their own page on Wiki. By the way the Western Neo Aramaic dialects are also known as "Siryon" and "Loghtha Siryanoytha", which means Syrian. The Arameans are the real Syrians/Suryoye and not the Assyrians.@AynHaylo Why is football called soccer in the US or why does rubber has a different meaning in American English than in British English?
Assyrian nationalism and its origin http://www.aramnahrin.org/English/Article_Zaman_16_11_2006.htm --Suryoyo124 (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC) @AynHaylo: there is no need to call people "brainwashed", perhaps you can express your opinion without name-calling.@MSGJ: The time frame of when a political movement started is of no consequence, when the ethnic appellation that political movement supports has always been in existence. Making your youtube clip irrelevant. The term Assyrian was only linked to the word Suryoyo historically through entomology. In other words the origins of the name Suryoyo, not much else until the late 20th C. During the Christian period for centuries, the explanation of where the word Suryoyo originated from in Syriac historical text was different. Highlighting the fact that when the Syriac fathers started calling themselves Suryoye, clearly they were unaware of where the name came from. The Assyrian name was only pickup by the Nestorians during the late 20th century when the British needed them to repel Kurdish tribes and assist in Ottoman resistance. The political ties the British had to the newly formed Assyrians (Nestorians) spilled over to the Syriac Orthodox Church, this was also punctuated by migration. Sr 76 (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
--Suryoyo124 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
So far as your next comment is concerned, "it [youtube clip] clearly shows that in the homeland NO ONE knew the name Oromoye/Aramean before at least the end of 50's". The comment is really is quite absurd, a 2014 interview can be prove what was said in a far-off land centuries earlier. I will show some real proof your conclusion is incorrect (without even trying):
1) The term Aramean WAS used and was even advocated by Patriach Ephram Barsoum in 1952 in his book. Again, your conclusion is incorrect and the youtube clip is irrelevant. @Sr 76: I'm sorry, what do I have to concede ? What is incorrect ?
I just wanted to show that Oromoyo is clearly a new name among our people and before the 80's the common people never heard about it, except some priests which is normal (The case of Aphram Barsoum for exemple is an interresting one: An Assyrian nationalist who after the seat being relocated to Syria became an Aramean nationalist and began his preaching which did not even go as far as to Tur'Abdin).
Here is another interessting point: The case of the Assyrian Orthodox Church of the Virgin Mary Param. New Jersay, it's one of the first church of our people being built in the USA, I don't remember the date of its foundation but it's long before 1952, it was during Na'um Faiq days....).
'AynHaylo (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
@Suryoyo124:In Suryoyo I stick to Suryoyo, my family being from Tur'Abin, They use Suryoyo. Moreover I said many times that those two name were new to our people (the common people not the clergy men), read my posts.
You tell me to read the history of our church ? I can provide you with quote from our Church Father linking us to Assyrian, even to Babylonian also. Our Forefathers, our clergy men are not the most reliable one. The best example are Aphram Barsoum: Assyrian nationalist and then Aramean, Zakai I saying:"The arab blood is flowing through our veins"...
"We can assume to be of Aramean origin" "LOL", maybe you're a from Arab descent, since many Arab migrated to Mesopotamia, there is even some suryoye who spoke Mesopotamian Arabic (Mardini) in some villages in Tur'Abdin, Most Suryoye from Syria don't even speak Suryoyo, they speak Arabic, therefore they can clearly assume to be of Arabic origin. You can replace "Arab" here with Kurd, Armenian or even Greek. @Sr 76: I don't understand what you mean, if you take a stand, make it clear. When I talk about the people I talked about the common people not the clergy men. I said it already, only our clergy men knew the name Oromoyo, the common people don't. Lack of reality ? c'mon...'AynHaylo (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC) AynHaylo you have a Turkish surname therefore you can assume to be of Turkish origin and your ancestors probably migrated from Central Asia. You're talking nonsense. Did you already forgot what you have said before? "I just don't care but I would not accept any Suryoyo saying that we're different people!" Suryoye from Syria are not different than those from Turkey. We have more in common than with the wannabe Assyrians (Nestorians) from Iraq and Iran. "Most Suryoye from Syria don't even speak Suryoyo, they speak Arabic" Go to Iraq and see how many of your Assyrians speak Arabic as their mother tongue as well, especially the younger generations. The same can be said about the Suryoye, even those from Tur Abdin, who emigrate to Germany, Swede, the Netherlands, USA etc. and speak+write the local language as their mother tongue and aren't fluent in Aramaic anymore. You and the other Suryoye from Turkey lived at the end of the world! My parents, grandpa and all the others worked in the city, so of course most of them were fluent in both Arabic and Kurdish. They were not isolated from the outside world like you. Hasyo Hanna Aydin is not the father of Aramean nationalism. Like I said before we only used Suryoye back in the homeland.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Sr 76 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
@Sr 76:
OK I understand what you mean, And What I wanted to point out is that the common people, in the homeland, did not use Othuroye & Oromoye to name/designate our people.
While the clergy were clearly aware of these two words and sometimes used them in their works.
I talked about the usage of Oromoyo & not the existance (Like you pointed out) of this word (Which don't need to be disputed by the way.).
Today we are not the same people, this needs to be dealt with. But until then, this redirection the way it is, means more conflict, division and separation. That is why I believe reverting all the pages to their original state and will allow for more civil deliberations. You can see examples of this with the efforts of the new Patriarch Afrem Karim. Sr 76 (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC) I do not agree with separation of the pages: one page should represent Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Syriacs/Arameams -- after all, we all call ourselves a Suraya or a Suryoyo. What exactly how are we "not the same people?" There are literally almost no differences besides minimal doctrinal and dialectal. @Sr 76: Do you have evidences to support your claim ?
Requestedit
I have followed your instructions and have gone to the Assyrian People talk page to collect consensus. We have had LindK1960, Suryoyo124 and myself all agreeing that the forced redirection be removed and the pages "Syriac People", "Aramean People" and "Chaldean People" restored. The only opponent was Penguins53 that made a false statement about scholarly translation, and then left the discussion (I suspect that he kept editing the page without signing it so people would not look at his contribution log) Then we had AynHaylo that openly admitted that he/she does not agree the current page title. Also that the situation is political by saying "The truth is that this debate is political, whether we are Assyrian or Aramean ethnically". But yet still disagrees with the removal of the redirection. Which is what is was saying all along, it was an Assyrian political agenda that was the motive for the redirection I the first place. Sr 76 (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC) OPPOSE: I forgot to add my signature and posted this above: I do not agree with separation of the pages: one page should represent Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Syriacs/Arameams -- after all, we all call ourselves a Suraya or a Suryoyo. What exactly how are we "not the same people?" There are literally almost no differences besides minimal doctrinal and dialectal. There is no reason to change the pages. They are all one people and there are no differences in culture, besides minor doctrinal differences. It is ridiculous to redirect the pages, especially since the Assyrian, Chaldean, and Syriac people are all one. It would be academically dishonest, offensive, and completely ahistorical to separate the people into theological pages. Penguins53 (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Penguins53 Addendum: Second of all, the "Assyrian," "Chaldean," "Syriac," and "Aramean," people all consider themselves one, as do scholars. This is also proved by the fact that they all call themselves Suraye or Suryoye. It would be ridiculous to make three separate pages for one people. Third of all, the term "Suraye/Suryoye" translates to "Syrian" in English, but does not refer to people from the modern-day republic of Syria. I never said that Suraye means "Assyrian." What I said was that we all call ourselves Suraye/Suryoye. To me, a Chaldean Catholic, I call myself a "Suraya" and consider my coethnics "Suraye." Similarly, I have friends who only identify as "Chaldean" (even though we belong to the same church), and call their people "Suraye." It would be totally insane to separate ONE community into three pages solely to please a few. Penguins53 (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Penguins53 To please a few? It didn't bother you when you axed the names "Chaldean," "Syriac," and "Aramean," just to please a few Assyrians(the minority group). NOW you are admitting the words Surayo/Suryoyo translates into Syrian/Syriac. EARLIER you were counting on the scholarly translation of the word Suryoyo. Which begs the question, why is the page called the "Assyrian People" if all the Assyrians/Chaldeans/Arameans agree the word Suryoyo/Suraya translates into Syriac? When you are proved wrong all of a sudden you need an excuse for your POLITICAL CRUSADE that involves historical truth. If we are all the same people the page should be called "Syriac People" not "Assyrian People", because in your words everyone calls themselves "Suraye/Suryoye" and that equals "Syriac". the word Assyrian is not common to ALL the "Suraye/Suryoye".
Yes, to please a few. That is because there is no such thing as "Chaldean," "Syriac," and "Aramean." They are theological appellations made up in the last 50 years or so. And yes, Suraya means Syrian, which comes from "Assyrian." The page is Assyrian because it represents all people - even by their theological names, like Syriac and Chaldean. Syriac is just a word that applies to the language and does not come from "Suraya/Suroyo." You misconstrued my words. There should not be a separation of pages. The current page is sufficient. It does not make sense to balkanize the pages to appease a few.Penguins53 (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Penguins53 Suryoyo is translated as Syrian(person/people), Suryoyo (the exact same WORD) is also translated as Syriac in English for the language. Since the naming of the Arab Republic of Syria it is logical to use Syriac for the people also so not to have an ambiguity between the people of the modern Arab country called Syrians.
Thank you @MSGJ:. Is possible to have the original "Syriac People" article reinstated to its previous condition as before the forced redirection was imposed? Sr 76 (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC) @@MSGJ: I have started with the introduction of the Draft:Syriac people article.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC) @Penguins53 "That is because there is no such thing as "Chaldean," "Syriac," and "Aramean." They are theological appellations made up in the last 50 years or so." You forgot to mention "Assyrians" here and you don't need to hide your views. You are clearly in favor for Assyrianism. "And yes, Suraya means Syrian, which comes from "Assyrian"." Syrian may derives from Assyrian, but it doesn't change the fact that the Arameans were also meant by this name. So, I don't understand what your problem is? The current "Assyrian people" article don't represent the views of those Suryoye who consider themselves as ETHNIC Arameans. We don't trace our ancestors back to the Akkadian populations as mentioned in the "Assyrian people" article. A move from "Assyrian people" to "Assyrian/Syriac people" wouldn't change anything of the content. We all agree on the "Suryoye/Suraye" name, why don't we use the "Syriac people" article for a neutral point of view, where we also mention the name conflict between the Assyrians, Arameans and even the Chaldeans? My suggestions:
--Suryoyo124 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC) I oppose the move to make the page to remove the redirect for Syriac people from the Assyrian people page. This would be an egregious error and affront to historicity. Sr76's reccomendation only fragments the group -- even though there may be internal division as to what their identity actually is. Separating the pages would only add confusion; take, for instance, the fact that there are Chaldean Catholics and Syriac Orthodox and Catholic people who identify as Assyrian. What will you consider them? What about people that consider themselves all three. What about towns and villages that have members identifying as Assyrian but are from the Syriac Catholic church? This will only further add to the problem. The solution is not to create a new page. I do not disagree with what Suryoyo124 says in that the solution would be better to amend the current "Assyrian people" page by adding large sections for members from each group and say this is a section on Chaldeans; this is a section for Arameans, etc. Separating the pages is not the right way to do this. Returning to the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac appellation could work, too, but separating the pages is - in all honesty - not the right approach.Also, this consensus only reflects a handful of people, and is not wholly accurate, nor should it dictate such emotionally-loaded decisions. Penguins53 (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Penguins53 There should be way more people involved in this decision. Also, thank you, Suryoyo124, for listening to both sides. I agree: It is clear that, throughout our peoples' history, they have for 2000 years called themselves Suraye/Suryoye. This is an indisputable fact. Additionally, when people called themselves Suraye/Suroye, they made reference to their history as Arameans and Assyrians. It seems to me that the thorn in our peoples' discussion is what was the pre-Christian history of our people -- this is what has plagued identity discussions since the 1840s from our people, when Assyrianism started to the 1950s when Arameanism started, and to around 1990s when Chaldeanism started. We fully know that we are not simply "Christians." We aren't just "Iraqi, Syrian, Iranian, or Turkish Christians." We've been something separate -- something distinct for 2000 years. As Suryoye/Suraye, we have speak one language (Aramaic with various dialects); we eat the same foods; we have a rich religious tradition; and we also have an unfortunate bond, too: that of 2000 years of the worst forms of persecution. It does not make sense to split the people into three pages; however, I do not think that making one page for "Syriac people" would suffice. What is the history of our people, then, before Christianity - before we became "Syriacs?" I do not deny that there is an Aramean identity movement; however, it must be recognized that is a rather newer form (doesn't make it wrong) of nationalism and that it is only used by members of the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic Churches. Similarly, Chaldeanism only comes from those who are from the Chaldean Catholic Church. Assyrianism, however, is found throughout all of our churches: Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic, and Ancient Church of the East. It has been the one uniting factor since our peoples' first nationalism in the 1840s and 1850s. Penguins53 (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Penguins53 My opinion is only ONE page, the name & the whole article should be modified to include Aramaic-Syriac heritage. However I'm against the name Chaldean for the simple fact that it's limited to the Chaldean Catholic Church and it's a name imposed by the Catholic authorities.'AynHaylo (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC) @AynHaylo "However I'm against the name Chaldean." I am not against it as long as there is a real movement named Chaldean. You want to be respected as an Assyrian then learn to respect others opinions "... to include Aramaic-Syriac heritage" What does it exactly mean? The current Assyrian people article with a bit more Aramaic heritage, but it still claims Assyrian ethnicity? No way. We all agree on Suryoye/Suryaye, but it seems like you don't really want to use it. Read my idea above and tell me what you think about it. @Penguins53 "It has been the one uniting factor since our peoples' first nationalism in the 1840s and 1850s." If it would be uniting then we wouldn't argue about it, where a lot of Suryoye who are against Assyrianism. There are no surveys about how many Suryoye call themselves Assyrians, Arameans, Chaldeans,... . However, Arameans and Assyrians seem to be the biggest groups.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC) @Suryoyo124, it was the uniting factor and still is. Like I said, (and I'm sure you know) "Assyiran" is the only label that draws people from all denominations, whereas "Aramean/Syriac" tends to only be from the Syriac Orthodox Church, and "Chaldean" only tends to be from the Chaldean Catholic Church. "Assyrian," on the other hand, undoubtedly finds constitutents within all of the Syriac Orthodox, Catholic, and Chaldean Catholic Church. (As you read above, I, myself, come from a family from Bakhdida from the Chaldean Catholic Church and we call ourselves "Assyrian.") As you know, the other labels are unique to specific denominations. Penguins53 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Penguins53 Also, a reason "Assyrian" was used on wikipedia was because there is a rule (I don't remember where or what its name is) that says you are to title the article by what it is most commonly referred to in English -- including media and other sources -- (and this is English Wikipedia), which was by a very far margin, "Assyrian." Also, there should be more people having a say in this important discussion. Penguins53 (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Penguins53
I have this idea from the German Wikipedia page, where it works almost perfectly without so many edit wars. In Germany, our people are known as Arameans, including the Assyrians and Chaldeans. The Germans were clever to create a common page called Suryoye, but each modern group has its own article called Arameans (Christianity) and Assyrians (present). There are also articles focused on the ancient Arameans and Assyrians as well. Even the Bavarians or the Yazidis have their own page on English Wikipedia. Lebanese or Syrian people are not redirected to the Arabs article. Let's make the Syriac people page our main page with sub-articles called Syriac-Arameans, Syriac-Assyrians or whatever. "...the only label that draws people from all denominations, whereas "Aramean/Syriac" tends to only be from the Syriac Orthodox Church, and "Chaldean" only tends to be from the Chaldean Catholic Church." Assyrianism may draw people from all denominations, but again we don't know if it is really the majority of us.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I've seen the pages in German about our people and there is not as much content as we have in the English pages of our people.
As I said it, I'm against making multiple pages for the reasons explained in my previous posts and I also give my opinion about what we should do. @AynHaylo Okay, I will support the idea of an article called "Assyrian/Syriac people". "Assyrian" because it is widely known for our people in English-speaking countries and "Syriac" because of our Christian heritage. But we will definitely need an "Assyrians" article about the ancient and pre-Christian nation like the current Arameans article. The "Assyrian/Syriac people" will focus only on our Christian heritage. Sentences like in the current introduction should be removed, e.g. "Assyrians trace their ancestry back to the Sumero-Akkadian civilization that emerged in Mesopotamia circa 4000–3500 BC". Instead we could put it into an Assyrian identity section or whatever within the "Assyrian/Syriac people" article and the same applies to the Aramean topics (I hope it won't be deleted or falsified by fanatic nationalists then). We could write "Assyrians/Syriacs trace their ancestry back to the Aramean and Sumero-Akkadian civilization who inhabited Mesopotamia" or we don't write about ethnicity in the introduction, because we have several sections. The "Assyrian/Syriac people" article will need semi-protection to avoid vandalism. Do you think this is better? --Suryoyo124 (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC) There is already an article about the pre-Chrisitan Assyrians: Assyria it contains all the information before Christianity, you can complete the Aramean article if needed.
C'mon, be serious, even if a large number of Church of the east faithfuls migrated to english speaking countries, it is the Suryoye who pushed for this name. Moreover, they are many monuments dedicated to the Seyfo and use the name Assyrian. These monuments are not only found in English speaking countries but also in France, Greece and Belgium.
On google search and Google news, Assyrian give more results. Even on Yahoo, the number of results for Arameans is even worst.'AynHaylo (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You can take for example Google trends, here are the following countries where each name is the most searched on Google, you can click on the name to get more useful information: Sr76, I want to cooperate with you and Suryoyo124 and not argue, as we are one people: What are specific problems with the current page? Penguins53 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Penguins53 Also, @AynHalo, that is a lot of really good and helpful information. I think the google trends to provide a good chunk of info, specifically that Assyrian is still the most widely used and searched. Penguins53 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Penguins53
Assyrian is the common name used in English to designate our people. Syriac is heavily used by Syriac Christian Indians, a page "Syriac people" would not be representative of our people, natives of north-Mesopotamia, this why there is a page called Names of Syriac Christians. We need more people get involved into this discussion. First of all, just because our people may be known as "Assyrians" in English-speaking countries doesn't mean we automatically have to promote Assyrianism or Assyrian nationalism on a common Wikipedia page for all Suryoye (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans etc.) no matter if it is called "Assyrian people", "Syriac people" or whatever. Again we don't know the exact numbers. @Penguins53 "What are specific problems with the current page?" You can remove almost the whole content of the history section, e.g. "Assyrian continuity" or "Ancient history", if we want a neutral base focused on our Christian heritage where we all agree. I say, we will definitely need sub-articles within a common page about the modern groups, e.g. "Assyrians (present)" and "Syriac-Arameans" about each groups views. We don't have Lebanese, Syrian or Tunisian people forcible redirected to the "Arabs" article, so why can't we have these pages then? "The page is not Assyrian propaganda, it's just facts, evidences etc." Of course it is otherwise we wouldn't argue about it! If I want to write an Aramean continuity article it would be probably redirected or removed.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Between @Penguins53: not signing his edits (still) and @AynHaylo: modifying other peoples edits(i don't know why he is doing this), the discussion has is unmanageable. Can the 2 of you operate with a level of clarity? Sr 76 (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
No I don't modify other people edit posts. I just edit my post. And I answer by using the button Edit at the top.If I have edited other people edits, provide the dates and the posts. @@Suryoyo124: Tunisians, Syrians and others Arabs don't redirect to Arabs simply because they have a country and are actually different people (And made up of different ethnicities) originating from different areas. Again, This page is not Assyrian propaganda, you argue about it because you don't want to accept it, even if it's based on facts, it's our heritage. If you want to write on Aramean continuity or even write on Aramean heritage, just add a section or mix it with the currents articles. 'AynHaylo (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@AynHaylo: If its not "propaganda and just facts" can you please explain why the reference to John Joseph was modified by @Penguins53: immediately after it was posted by me, making the comment that MOST historians don't agree....and then it was deleted. You have a list @Penguins53:? Please provide me with a list of references of historians that claim the Nestorians were not introduced to Assyrian identity by the British during the closing stages of the 19th century A.D.
@Sr 76:
About the references, here is one of H.W.F. Saggs: @AynHaylo The Aramean movement is based on our real heritage and history, which forms this strong foundation! Your invented "Assyrian" ethnic identity has no foundation among the Syriac Christians (Suryoye) before the 19th century. Once again, the Syriac-Orthodox Church has clearly its roots in the Aramean nation and can prove an Aramean ethnic identity by its chronicles, which goes hundreds of years back even before the 20th century, whereas the "Assyrian" Church of the East can't prove its Assyrian identity before the 19th century. BTW we are actually known as Süryaniler in Turkish and as Syrianin in Arabic, both words mean Syrians, but refer to the Aramaic-speaking Christians. In Arabic you have two words for Syrian, but with different meanings. Moreover, the bible clearly distinguish between Syrians (Arameans) and Assyrians. Syrian is the Greek word for Aramean and this word was adopted by the Arameans in their mother tongue and they have called themselves Suryoye since then. I don't care about what other people call us. Most Germans call oriental-looking persons Turks and every black person is just an African. What matters is what we call ourselves. We have always called ourselves Suryoye (Syrians) and our origin is Aramaic, not pseudo Assyrian. "The people we Greek call Syrians, they CALL THEMSELVES Arameans" (Posidonius)--Suryoyo124 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC) @Suryoyo124:
"Your invented "Assyrian" ethnic identity" ==> It's as invented as "your" Aramean identiy. Arab Geographer Al Mas-udi visited Nineveh in 943 A.D. He described it as a complex of ruins in the middle of which there are several villages and farms, It was to these settlements that god sent Jonah" he wrote. (Brian M. Fagan, Return to babylon, Little, Brown & Co., Canada p.18.) This statement echoed the sentiments of the Christian Assyrians. Some of the better known Assyrian villages of Nineveh at that time were: 'Takshur', mentioned by Bar Awraya, 'Tarrut D' Nineveh ' [Gate of Nineveh], 'Ba Gabbari' [ the Braves], the birth place of Patriarch Ishu Barnon located between the walls of Nineveh and Mosul, , mentioned by Yagut in 1220 . 'Bori', where a beautiful church was built in the 7th century, consecrated by Mar Yokhanan Metropolitan of Adiabene, and 'Gorba' , a Jacobite Assyrian village. (J.M. Fiey, O.P., Assyrie Chretienne, Imprimerie Catholique, Beyrouth, 159, pp.488-493.) Assyrian towns north of Ninveh at that time which still exist today were, Algosh, Tel Ke, Baghdeda, Baqofa, Bartella, Karmales, Egra, Zakhoo, Amedia.
"Syrian is the Greek word for Aramean and this word was adopted by the Arameans in their mother tongue and they have called themselves Suryoye since then. I don't care about what other people call us",
"The people we Greek call Syrians, they CALL THEMSELVES Arameans" (Posidonius)", to this : The second century Tatian identified himself as Assyrian. He wrote, "I was born in the land of the Assyrians.."
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-36.htm
His contemporary Lucian of Samostosa, in his "Goddess of Syria" wrote : "I that write [this] am "Assourious" [Assyrian]".
(Lucian, Translated by A.M. Harmon, Vol. IV, "The godesse of Surrye", London 1925 p.339.) " When those who have written histories about the Syrian empire say that the Medes were overthrown by the Persians and the Syrians by the Medes, they mean by the Syrian no other people than those who built the royal palaces in Babylon and Ninus; and of these Syrians, Ninus was the man who founded Ninus [Nineveh], in Aturia..[Assyria]. (H.L. Jones Translation of "Geography of Strabo", New York 1916, Vol. VIII p.195) " Moreover, the bible clearly distinguish between Syrians (Arameans) and Assyrians" : At that time, the two were still at war until the Assyrian definitely conquered them. And last but not least, ܥܐܕܐ ܒܪܝܟܐ.'AynHaylo (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC) @Suryoyo124: why aren't you voting?
@AynHaylo: So you admit that the Nestorians were introduced to the name Assyrians by the British, the omission of this information on the page is deliberately bias in favour of Assyrianism. So going back to the original point the Assyrian People page is Assyrian Propaganda and not just facts. Sr 76 (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC) @AynHaylo: Don't be misleading. The Armeanians and Persians did not call the Syriacs, Assyrians. They called them a name derived from the 11th Persian satrapy "Assuristan", again making the issue etymological (regarding the origins of the name). The Armeanians and Persians used a different name for the Assyrians and a different name for Syriacs. In the same way in european languages the name Syrian was indirectly derived from Assyrian. and yet the 2 names managed to coexist for almost 2700 years. If the 2 name meant the same thing, and they sound and are spell almost identical then why would they coexist for such a long period? The answer is simple They refer to different people. Sr 76 (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC) @Sr 76: No ones denies that Arameans, as an ethnicity were dominant due to the mass deportation carried by the Assyrian kings, the making of the Aramaic language as official proved this, but like Simo Parpola demonstrate this, they were Assyrians, in the same way that a German Americans is Americans and an Italian American is American, US citizen, here is the paper: Assyrian Identity in ancient times and today. They made the Aramaic language their own, produced literature like the saying of Ahiqar while Arameans did nothing about their story, their identity, their people, no such thing as Aramean people and greatness, just a few cities that were conquered and assimilated in the Assyrian empire. To the point that even Hebrew refers to the so-called Aramaic script as Assyrian script, to the point that the Aramaic language spoken to this day is called Surayt and not Oromoyo. Even after the collapse of the Empire, why is there no such thing as Aramean people after the collapse of the Assyrian empire ? the Persian refers to us as Assyrians, the Armenian do the same, the greek also. Even in the 1st century AD, there is still Assyrian/Akkadian names attested in all part of Mesopotamia. And again, Simo parpola demonstrated well about Suraya / Suryoyo. This is a fact, there was no "Aramean identity", but an Assyrian one which even after the collapse of the empire survived, why Herodotus speak about "Assyrian soldiers" ? Why don't he speak about "Aramean soldiers" Can you explain why ? simply because, again there was no such thing as "Aramean consciousness". @Sr 76: No I don't admit, I just retort him his own stupid sayings about "invention of assyrian" and your only argument saying it's a foreign influence on our people. @Sr 76: Again, If you talk of "Assyrian propaganda" there is also an Aramean propaganda. @Sr 76: The Armenians and the persians called us Assyrians this is well proven. The Armenians did use different denominations when they want to refers to the church affiliation. The writings of Horatio Southgate also attest this. They called us Assyrian because there was a country called Assyria and not Aramea, They called us Assyrians as it is told in the doctrine of Addai, they went to the country of the Assyrian, in their city Urhoi, why didn't they use the country of Aram or Aram-nahrin, syria ? And stop saying that we're different people. Even the Aramean, Assyrian and Syriac organizations and associations consider us as ONE people, all the patriarchs consider us as ONE people. You are just driven by your hatred of the Assyrian name, to the point that you consider us as two different people. The Aramean name has been introduced 30-40 years by our priest and bishops among our people, the behavior of Mor Aphrem I Barsoum attest it. 'AynHaylo (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC) @AynHaylo Our Aramean ethnic identity has not been introduced 30-40 years ago. It is a not a completely new name for us invented by the Syriac-Orthodox Church. The old name has not been actively used in our daily life and was revived in the diaspora to avoid the Syrian (Suryoyo) name, because most people think of Arabs and Muslims when they hear Syrian, but we definitely knew that our language is Aramaic and our ethnicity is Aramean even in our homeland! We should be grateful that our ancestors have preserved our Aramaic heritage and history despite Christianization. Eusebius of Caesarea († 339): "and from Aram the Arameans, which are also called Syrians."(From: Sebastian Brock, "Eusebius and Syriac Christianity," in Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata, eds., Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism (Leiden 1992), p. 226) Nestorian Bar Bahlul from the 10th century says: "Men qdim SURYAYE ARAMAYE methqren waw" = "The SYRIANS were previously called ARAMEANS". Mar Jacob of Edessa (†708 A.D.): "Ho hokuth hnan OROMOYE awkith SURYOYE" = "It in the same way also we the ARAMEANS, that is to say the SYRIANS".(Jacques des Edesse, Scolie, dans Patrologie Orientalis.T.29,1960 P.196) Mar Dionysios of Tell Mahre († 9th century):"u-men horko shari bnay Hogor lamsho ‘bed la-bnay OROM b-she ‘bodo Mesroyo" = "Since the descendants of Hagar (The Arabs) began to enslave the sons of ARAM (The Arameans) an Egyptian slavery".(Chabot,Jean.Baptiste., Quatriéme Partie de la Chronique Syriaque de Denys de Tell Mahré Texte Syrlaque.P.11) Michael the Syrian:"Tub yad Aloho kuthbinan ‘al uhdono d-malekwotho da-hway b-zabno ‘atiqo men umtho dilan OROMOYE awkith bnay OROM ethqriw SURYOYE awkith bnay SURIYA". = "By the help of God we will present what is said about the ancient kingdoms that were built by our ARAMEAN nation that is to say the sons (descendants) of ARAM who were called SYRIANS that is to say the sons (inhabitants) of Syria……".(Chabot.Jean.Baptiste.,La Chronique Syriaque de Michel le Syrien,T.3, P.442)--Suryoyo124 (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC) |
Protected edit request on 26 December 2014
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
213.89.4.197 (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Endorse ′′′Endorse′′′
Not done: You need to wait for the deletion review to be closed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 20 June 2016
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The name syriac people must have the option to forward to the page arameans becouse beside assyrians the arameans also claim and use this name this would improve Wikipedia Ayatollah khamenei (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit protected}}template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Target
editShould redirect to Terms for Syriac Christians. The term "Syriac people" should never be used, but it is doubtful that when people do they mean to indicate the Assyrians specifically. —Srnec (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 28 July 2021
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page should be moved to Terms for Syriac Christians since Syriac people is used which refers to all various names of these people.Reldex (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Reldex (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done however feel free to start (what seems to be another) WP:RFD. — xaosflux Talk 09:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
