Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 17 |
File:Chaldean Flag.svg Nominated for Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:Chaldean Flag.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Chaldean Flag.svg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
Nation and heritage stuff
Q: Are they genetically the Assyrians per ancient times or not?
- A: the question is invalid for the mathematical complexity of propagation: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 parents per generation, N generations gives 2N parents, if a generation conservatively is 33.333 years, for 3000 years we get 90 generations giving 290 = 1.24·1027 parents... meaning that every living human with an overwhelming probability have some Assyrian heritage.
Q: How is this nationality defined?
- A: Personally, having some contact with them, I'm under the impression that membership in one of their Christian Churches (including the Chaldean Catholic Church) mentioned is defining, since they may have Turkish, Neo-Aramaic or Arabic as their native tongue, and may not always communicate easily with each other,
- therefore I believe the statement They are predominantly Christian in the lead is inaccurate. They're Christians and nothing else (I think). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
We are Assyrians and it's not a bunch of internet user who should define what we are, We are Suryoye and it has been more than 2500 years that we use that word no matter what you think personnaly, it has been proven that Suryoyo comes from the Akkadian word for Assyrian. We lived in northen-mesopotamia since the beginning of the civilization and we call our language Sureyt or Suryoyo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.37.216 (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Genetic continuity claim
The Assyrian continuity currently claims "strong" evidence, inter alia, of genetic continuity. This is a mis-use of the source cited for this. The source says talks about the distinctiveness of the genetic profile compared to other populations. The most it claims about continuity is quoting another source that it is "possible". Further, the genetic section of the Assyrian continuity article takes a similar approach. I'm changing this article accordingly. DeCausa (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Having now looked at the other source - Simo Parpola - there is nothing in the source that backs up the claim i.e. no mention of continuity to modern Assyrians. I've therefore re-written the whole section. DeCausa (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
False claim
"Assyria flourished during the Achaemenid period (from 539-323 BC) (see Achaemenid Assyria) as Athura, becoming a major source of manpower for the Achaemenid armies and a breadbasket for the empire, disproving the Biblical assertion[which?] that Assyria was both depopulated and devastated." The sentence fails to explain which 'Biblical assertion' its referring to. The claim dives into theology rather than history, because it tries to interpret religious prophecy, as far as I can tell. From what I have researched, the Biblical pronunciations of destruction were targeted at cities, like Nineveh, which were, indeed, destroyed by the Babylonians. So, what is the point of the end of this sentence? I'm removing the quasi-theological assertion. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Semiramis
Semiramis is the name that greeks used when refering to the Assyrian queen Shamiram. Assyrians never use the Greek version, Semiramis, but instead the name Shamiram. I think that this needs to be corrected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.244.228 (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 6 January 2013
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Beginning of Modern History section contains misspellings. "However, this corporation with the British was viewed with suspicion by some leaders of the newly formed Kingdom of Iraq. The tensioned" Corporation should be cooperation, tensioned should be tension. 173.19.166.19 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 13 January 2013
There's a typo in "Modern history" in reference to Iraqi independence. The word "deceleration" is used where "declaration" was intended. 172.2.20.29 (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Propaganda
I've looked at the archives of this article, and I am horrified about how many edits or even whole articles have been deleted, because it seems like that it doesn't fit to the view of some Assyrian nationalists here, although references were often given. It is not in the interests of Wikipedia to be a propaganda platform. In the Aramean article, where is a section which claims that the Aramaic language spoken nowadays in Syria or Iraq was heavily influenced by Akkadian in grammar and words, but where are the refernces again for such a statement? Anyway I would really like to know, if there are any websites or other sources about what these people were called at the time of Jesus since the Aramaic language was spoken in Palestine or in the whole north of the Arabian Peninsula before they were converted to Christianity. Maby Jewish sources or writings by native Aramaic speakers of that time abouth their identitiy?--Baltomo (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
This is why the article is tagged as needing expert attention.--Kathovo talk 13:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Andre Agassi?
On what basis is he in the infobox? Presumably not because of his mother, Elizabeth Dudley (doesn't sound very Assyrian)? His Iranian father in his own words said his parents were Armenian: "from Kiev" and "Turkish Armenian" (Cobello, Dominic; Agassi, Mike (2004). The Agassi Story. pp. 12–14. DeCausa (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Aghassi is a popular persian name derived from Agha. Many Assyrians from Salmas are known by that name including for example Evin Aghassi. It seems very convenient that Andre's father tries to downplay his family's Iranian in the midst of the strained US-Iranian relations of the 2000s. Mother's name doesn't really reflect ethnicity since many immigrants sought to americanise their names in one way or another, David B. Perley, F. Murray Abraham, and Charles Atlas are a few examples a can recall.--Kathovo talk 14:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Assyrians and Syriacs/Arameans are actually Different peoples
There appears to be a great deal of controversy regarding Assyrians Vs Arameans or Syriacs. Why, I do not know! They are CLEARLY seperate and distinct peoples, Seperated by the following;
LANGUAGE; Assyrians speak Mesopotamian dialects of Eastern Aramaic, which contain Akkadian loan words and which have gramatical commonality with the Akkadian that these dialects overlayed and replaced IN MESOPOTAMIA. Arameans/Syriacs from Syria now almost all speak Arabic. They USED to speak Western Aramaic, a language with no Akkadian loan words and no grammatical commonality with Akkadian. And a language originating in Syria.
GEOGRAPHY; Assyrians live and have always lived in Mesopotamia/Iraq, and regions immediately next to it which were once part of Assyria/Mesoptamia, namely Northeast Syria and Southeast Turkey, as well as Northwest Iran. Arameans/Syriacs have always lived in Syria and Lebanon, and to some degree south central Turkey.
HISTORY; Historically the inhabitants of the bulk of Syria and Lebanon have NEVER been referred to as Assyrians, whereas the Pre-Arab Semitic inhabitants of Upper Mesopotamia ALWAYS have.
GENETICS; Those studies that have been done on both peoples clearly show different genetic profiles, ergo Syriacs from Syria and Lebanon differ from Assyrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by81.111.12.105 (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- LANGUAGE: Neo-Aramaic dialects spoken by those "pure" Assyrians have more Arabic, Turkish and Iranian words than Akkadian. Does that make them Arabs or Turks? Syriacs of Tur Abdin speak a dialect close to Classical Syriac which is unlike what you claim an Eastern Aramaic dialect.
- GEOGRAPHY: Most "pure Assyrians" come from Urmia and Hakkari, certainly they can't be more Assyrians than the Syriacs of Tur Abdin. Ironically as Jean Fiey (an actual expert on the subject) puts it: "It is these Christians, who, for centuries, have lived in the lands of Assur, Kaleh, and Nineveh, that shall have more right to the title, even though they are called Chaldeans or Syrians."[1]
- HISTORY: It was actually those who came in contact with Greeks (i.e. far far away from Assyria) such as Lucian Tatian that refered ti themselves as Assyrians. on the other hand one can find no entry for the word Assyrian in the medieval lexicon of the supposedly "pure Assyrian" Bar Bahlul.
- GENETICS: What genetic studies are you refering to?--Kathovo talk 14:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
All languages pick up influences from elsewhere, so what? The point is that the Neo-Aramaic dialects of Mesopotamia OVERLAYED Akkadian, hence the gramatical structural influence and Akkadian loan words.
- Do you have any reliable sources to prove it or are you fluent in both Aramaic and Akkadian to give examples? However, according to Wikipedia English has more than 50% words of Latin and French origin, but does it make English to a Romance language or French? It still Germanic in grammer. The same applies to Arabic dialects, which are influenced by other languages but are still recognizable as Arabic. If Aramaic was strong undermined by Akkadian espacially in its grammer structure then it would be neither Aramaic nor Akkadian anymore but a new language. --Baltomo (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
PURE is a misnomer; Nobody is PURE anything. But Assyria encompassed northern Iraq, North East Syria and South East Turkey, together with Assyrian migrants to NorthWest Iran. And they were known as Assyrians; by the Medieval Arabs, Armenians, Georgians etc. In addition it is pretty much proven that Syriac/Syrian = Assyrian, so those terms actually meant Assyrian anyway, including Syriac as a dialect.
- Mesopotamia and the Levant region were not only governed and populated by Assyrians before them and after them. The region is now mainly populated Arabs, Turks and Kurds, while Assyrians/Syriacs represent a small minority. And Synonyms can change their meaning in the course of their history! The term Syrian might originated from Assyrian, but seriously many people don´t know that and rather think of Arabs or Islam, if they hear Syrian. As someone else has already written here the term Syrian could also have been a synonyme for Arameans similar to Palestinian term for Arabs nowadays.--Baltomo (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
As for the term Chaldean, it is purely a Theological/Doctrinal term, and only came into being to describe Assyrians who embraced Catholicism between the 16th and 18th Centuries, none of whom were from Chaldea, all of whom were from Upper Mesopotamia.
True, some Christians from Syria ARE Assyrians, particularly those in the North East, but to say those communities in Lebanon and in Western Syria are ethnically, culturally, geographically or linguistically Assyrian is a nonsense, those people are Aramean or Canaanite/Phoenician in origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? Or the other way around asking, why can not the people in northern Iraq or south east Turkey be Arameans? Cultures, languages and ethnic groups are not only tied to their place of origin, otherwise you would not have Arabs in Mesopotamia or the English language would not be spoken in North America, South Africa or in Australia. Many Syrian Christians seem to have an identity crisis, but instead of finding a consensus or to respect each other they like to argue.--Baltomo (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I dont think that they do have an identity crisis, they are not all the same people is the reason for these arguments. The term Syriac Christians is just a 'Catch-All' term, and a Theological one at that. As for Arameans, well the Christians of Mesopotamia have never been referred to as Arameans either by themselves or neighbouring peoples, whereas those of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan etc have. As well as geography, there are linguistic and genetic differences between Syriacs-Arameans and Assyrians-Chaldo-Assyrians.
After all we do not refer to Orthodox Christians as if they were an ethnic group, so why should we assume that all Semitic Middle Eastern Christians are exactly the same race? There is no historical, linguistic or genetic evidence to suggest that they were/are is there?
The GLARING MISTAKE in all of this naming issue is the assumption by some that every pre Arab Semitic Christian in the Middle East is from exactly the same ethnic group, with exactly the same history, exactly the same genetic profile, exactly the same culture and from exactly the same origin. And following that incorrect assumption is the statement that these people, who are all the same race, then argue amongst each other about what their identity and name should be.
The fact is that Mesopotamia and Aramea were always different places, with different ethnic groups, different histories etc. Certainly the Assyrians-Babylonians interbred with Arameans and to such a degree that Mesopotamian influenced versions of Aramaic supplanted Akkadian. However there is no evidence to support Mesopotamian mass migration or settlement in the deserts and towns of central Syria or in the Aramean-Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean Coasts.
The Semitic Christians of Iraq, Iran, North East Syria and South East Turkey are Assyrians, they have always been referred to as such by themselves and their neighbours, and historical record shows a continuity from ancient Mesopotamia. However those of the bulk of Syria, South Central Turkey and Lebanon have never been referred to as Assyrians, because they are not Assyrian. All these people are ethnically and culturally related, in the same way that a Serb is to a Russian, but that no more means an Assyrian is an Aramean or an Aramean is an Assyrian than it means a Serb is a Russian.
- Wrong! My family are from Qamishlo and they have always referred to as Suryoye even the older generations, not Othuroye. The Arabs and Kurds called them Syrianin and in Turkey it is Süryaniler for Arameans/Assyrians. The Turkish word for Assyrian would be Asurlular. I remember than a Turkish person told another guy in Turkish that I am a Suriyeliler, which is very similar to Suryoye in Aramaic. This shows that at least the Syrian Arabs and Turks know us by this name and not Assyrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuro231 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
All this seems pretty obvious to me, and to have a Wiki entry for Assyrian people should not be muddied by throwing in people from Syria, Lebanon etc who have never been referred to by themselves or others as Assyrians, and are quite obviously not Assyrians in any sense seems controversial and a nonsense. Aramean people should have their own entry; Aramean People, and BOTH groups should cease trying to claim the other as part of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Syriac Christian is not a theological term, actually it bears no theological meaning at all since Syriac Christians can be of any theological persuasion in the middle east.
- You have not shown any evidence to support your claim that Aramaic speakers in Mesopotamia "always" refered to themselves as Assyrians. They endonym they used was always Suryaya/Suraya meaning "Syrian", they called their language Sureth literally meaning "in Syriac". The fact that the name Syria developed from Assyria doesn't imply anything, the same way Romanians are not inhabitans of Rome, neither are Tajik Arabs.
- Actually there is ample evidence to suggest that Assyria was heavily aramised from the 8th century B.C. as Assyrianist Parpola shows that 4.5 million people were resettled by the Assyrians, in total, hundreds of thousands of Aramaeans were brought to the heartland of Assyria.[2] At the dawn of Christianity ancient identities did not mean anything and the only speakers of Aramaic chose to identify was by their church, some followed the Greek church and were heavily hellenised and later completely Arabised, others found refuge in isolated regions such as Tur Abdin and Hakkari and kept their language. When modern Aramaic speaking nationalists chose to call themselves Assyrians it did not matter whether they hailed from Urmia (Freydon Aturaya) or Homs (Farid Nazha).
Ethnic identities are never determined by genetics, anyway afaik there are no genetic studies that suggest Christians of Urmia are real Assyria while those in Tur Abdin are not.--Kathovo talk 12:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There are differences between Assyrians and Aramean-Syriacs; 1.GENETICS; The genetic profiles of Assyrians from Iraq/Southeast Turkey/Iran and Northeast Syria are homogenous with each other according to studies, but DIFFERENT to those of central and western Syria and Lebanon. 2. LINGUISTIC; Linguistically Assyrians speak Eastern Aramaic or Mesopotamian Neo-Aramaic dialects, these STILL have an Akkadian grammatical structure and contain Akkadian words, whereas the Aramean-Syrian population never did, they ALWAYS spoke Western Aramaic, and now almost all speak Arabic. 3. GEOGRAPHIC; The Assyrian group always lived in what was Assyria/Mesopotamia and its immediate surrounds, and have been known as Assyrians, Ashuriyun, Assouri etc since ancient times continuously, whereas the Arameans were never known as such. They were always known as Arameans, and later as Syrian or Syriac. This was introduced much later by the Greeks, and originally actually meant Assyria.
Why not accept that these are two different peoples??? Both Semitic, both Pre-Arab, both followers of Christianity, both Culturally related BUT DIFFERENT. Let Arameans call themselves as such and have their own entry, and let Assyrians do the same!!!! Assyrians trying to claim Arameans as Assyrians, and Arameans trying to claim Assyrians as Arameans is STUPID! WHY DO IT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 05:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Care to show some references? In the modern context Assyrian and Aramean are used interchangeably. see for example The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East, Religious Origins of Nations?, and The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, the Last Arameans.--Kathovo talk 14:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
"Numbers Based on Assyrian members of the Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Church, Ancient Church of the East, Syriac Catholic, and Syriac Orthodox"
I will remove the numbers "based on different church members" since we can not just count the memebrs of the different churches up, first of all the church memebrship do not reflect the ethnic population, and the numbers of the source seems not be very accurate. Let us just use the source of AUA (Assyrian Universal Alliance) till we get another source of the ethnic population, it is also the numbers in which the AUA represent the Assyrians in the UNPO. Elvis214 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Dude, you can't just keep on putting the AINA numbers which are not based on anything. The 3.3 million number: yes, I understand, this is from the UNPO.
Adding up the members of the churches is at least statistically plausible. You don't have influxes of groups "converting" into Assyrian Christianity. 99% of those aforementioned churches are ethnically Assyrian, so it's safe to say that, yes, in this case, church membership does, to some degree, represent an ethnic group.
You should leave the 1.7 million number as a conservative estimate. It is foolish to keep on removing a clearly sourced and fact-based number, whereas the 4.2 million is a.) 20 years old and b.) not based on evidence or facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, I'm just saying that there's really no way that there are over 4 million people who identify as Assyrian, Chaldean, or Syria worldwide.
We have a solid 300,000 in Iraq, 15,000-20,000 in Iran; some 15,000-20,000 in Turkey; and a few hundred thousand in Syria. Then, there are most likely some 200,000 in the U.S., 100,000-120,000 in Sweden, some 20,000-30,000 in Australia. And the rest are spread out in smaller populations throughout the world. That is nowhere near 4.2 million.
I'm not saying that 1.7 million is 100% reliable. It's a range, and a reliable conservative figure, at that. The page should say 1.7-3.3 million. Not 4.2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Pre War Population of Assyrians in Iraq was between 1-1,5 million, so now it dropped to 300,000. There was 1-1,5 million in Iraq but where are those at least 700,000 who fled? In Syria the number range from 700,000 to 800,000 only for the Syriac Orthodox Church, alone in the al Aassakeh Governorate about 200,000 mostly Syriac Orthodox Assyrians. Elvis214 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Untitled
Someone should ask Professor Sargon G. Donabed. He is the best expert on Assyrian identity of any period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.245.48 (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
--CommonSenseofCourse (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Assyrians in Iraq are a minority; the majority of the Aramaic speaking Christians in Iraq are either Chaldean or Syriac, neither of the two claim to be Assyrian. There are Assyrians that are part of each church, do not confuse a pupil that attends the Chaldean Catholic/Syriac Orthodox Church, but calls himself Assyrian. Chaldeans are of Arab ancestry and Syriacs are of Aramean ancestry. Assyrians have nothing to do with ancient Assyrians. They are simply a group of Persian Christians/Armenians that were fooled by British Evangelists. They are Ah-Toor-A-Yah(Atoraya), meaning the people of the mountains, not Assyrians pertaining to Assur. Their issue is complex and they are bending the truth about the Christians of the Middle East, specifically the Syriacs and Chaldeans. They have nothing that proves that they are in fact Assyrian; the only thing they have is references pertaining to Assyrian Nationalists, which many have been successfully refuted by Syriac and Western scholars. They do not seek to unite neither of the groups, they simply wish to push their own agenda so that they can claim benefits from Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. Without Syriacs or Chaldeans on their side, they are unable to achieve any of their goals. They are not going anywhere in politics, the only threat they oppose is here on Wikipedia where they can misconstrued history. The joke is on them however because no scholar or researcher uses Wikipedia as a reference. They are a joke in Iraq and many of them ran during the seventies because their citizenship were stripped for being Iranians, which they truly are. Neither Syriacs or Chaldeans faced that issue in Iraq during the seventies. Many Assyrians speak funny Aramaic and Arabic. Their Aramaic does not sound like Syriac or Chaldean Aramaic; it sounds much like Persian than anything. They are not from Iraq as they have you believe, most of them come from Iran, but because of the Sykes-Picot Agreement many of them immigrated from Iran. They were considered as "ajam" in Iraq. The Massacre of Simele of 1933, was due to their fake Assyrian nationalism. The Syriacs and Chaldeans saved them from ethnic cleansing and this is how they repay them. They are much related to Kurds more than anyone in Iraq, this is apparent through their common mannerisms and nationalism, as well as their language, accent, and looks. Assyrians, please continue to disgrace yourselves, please, the more the merrier. The truth hurts. I feel sorry for your children because they are fed this fake idea of Assyrianization. Many of them will not know that they in fact are Kurds, Persians, or Armenians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommonSenseofCourse (talk • contribs) 01:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC) --CommonSenseofCourse (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You are the biggest troll that we have ever seen on this page, we Assyrians are Assyrians, we Syriacs are Assyrians, we Chaldeans are Assyrians. That is all. We are one people, Assyrians are Syriacs and vice versa. With all respect to the Armenians, Kurds, Arabs and Persians, we are not a part of you, we are our own people with our own language (Suryaya/Suryoyo ܣܘܪܝܝܐ) and our own religion. Our name : Suryoye or Suryaye goes back to thousand years ago, this has been more than 2500 years that we use this terms to designate us as a people, our language is an Aramaic language influenced by Akkadian (mainly loanwords but with a few grammaticals structures). .ܐܚܢܐ ܚܕ ܥܡܐܢܐ݂ ܟܠܢ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܡܢ ܐܫܘܪ ܡܘܬܐ ܠܒܥܠܕܒܒܐ ܘ ܟܝܢ/ ܚܝܢ Here is a video of us Assyrians, taking up arms and forming millitia (around 3000 for the Assyrian democratic movement and around 2000 for the Assyrian Assyrian Patriotic Movement) in Iraq (source AFP : Agence France Presse) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cxcr7SLyso I will leave you with the following pages, we are Assyrians/Syriacs those two terms are synonyms: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Syriac-Military-Council-MFS/495168480591866 https://www.facebook.com/SyriacsNews?ref=stream https://www.facebook.com/pages/Institut-Assyro-Chald%C3%A9en-Syriaque-FRANCE/191535884215845?ref=stream https://www.facebook.com/pages/ESU-Youth/633474350000894 https://fr-fr.facebook.com/pages/Institut-dEtudes-Aram%C3%A9ennes/384281555025566 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Assyrische-Br%C3%BCderschaft-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%86/500892583268758 https://www.facebook.com/pages/%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B4%D8%A7-Dwekh-Nawsha/691995807561137 'AynHaylo (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I am collecting "consensus" to have the forced redirection from "Syriac People" to "Assyrian People" removed, see the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syriac_people#Protected_edit_request_on_11_November_2014 @CommonSenseofCourse: Sr 76 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Syriac > Assyrian
| yet another useless opinion thread |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
this is unacceptable to redirect searches about Syriacs to articles about Assyrians, we (Syriacs) do not accept the Assyrian/Ashuri/Athuri naming period Wikipedia have been hijacked by a Assyrian theory supporters, I have noticed that Syriac articles one by one been replaced, edited and falsified information. This is a planned attack against the Syriac Aramean identify. No wonder the Assyrian groups never gained any political success among the Syriac-Chaledan-Assyrian groups because they resort to such methods, not different from Baath parties propaganda to erase other people's identifies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.152.150 (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Tell me where are all your evidence to say that we are Arameans ? The fact that the word Suryoyo comes from the Akkadian word for Assyrian ? or maybe because we live in north-Mesopotamia for more than 5000 years and speak the official language of the Assyrian Empire ? And also because all the other people of the middle east know us as Assyrians and not as Arameans ? In fact you don't have more proof to say that we are only Arameans, we are from Assyrian heritage and maybe a little bit of Arameans since they lived in Syria not between the Tigris and the Euphrates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daywono (talk • contribs) 13:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC) You are simply wrong Suryoyo is not an Akkadian word as usual as with all your non scince based "facts" on this page, you make up "knowledge" and call it truth, the fact is which is proven by the poster below that Arabs call and know us in these arabic words "Aramin"(Plural of Aramean) or "Syrianin"(Spelling which translates Suryoye). It´s very obvius that you are a so called "assyrian" which is making up facts to fit your own false purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikel swe (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Shlomo, i am a Syrian-orthodox Aramean from Syria and in my hometown nobody calls himselfes Assyrian or Ashuri, but Oromoyo or Suryoyo. But let's be honest we are neither pure Assyrians nor Arameans since there were dozens of different semitic groups in the Levant including Mesopotamia with similar languages and cultures, and every group competet with each other or mingled. Just because the Arameans were from Syria doesn't mean they were only limited on this area. Have you ever heard from migration of the peoples? For example the Turks they are original from central asia or there are many people in North America with English ancestry who emigrate from the British island/Europe. I find it ridiculous when Assyrians claim they would speak Assyrian and not Aramaic, although the Assyrian language is dead. It's like when Australians say they speak Australian and not English. Language is an important identity for a nation without language you lose culture. How can you say then we are from Assyrian heritage when the ancient Assyrians have been assimilated into Aramaic culture and intermixed with them? Perhaps for a few Assyrian DNA there was nothing left from them while the language of the Arameans is still alive and important to us especially for our Chritian background. BTW just because many people may call us as "Assyrians" means nothing. The Spaniard call Germans Alemán. The word Alemán drives from Allemanic a Germanic folk which lived in Switzerland and southern Germany, but what does modern Germans have to do with it since they are not Alemannis but the Spaniard call them like that? It is not clear where the word Suryoyo really comes from. Some historians say that the Greeks have it derived from Assyria and called the Aramaic Christians by this name. The Aramaic Christians have taken this name to distinguish itselfes from the pagan Aramaic speaking people. A new nation was born namely the Syrians, but since the Arabs uses this name and many of our people do not want to be associated with Arabs or Islam they go back to the old name or other names such as Assyrian, and this is the real dilemma. The article should be called Syriac people not Assyrian to be neutral!--Hansestd (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC) You're right we're a mix of people of the ancient middle-east and speak a dialect of Aramaic but saying it's false to say we speak Assyrians is like saying Italians don't speak Italian, they speak Latin, but let's be honest : We never said : "Ahna oromoyena" in the homeland, nobody in Tur'abdin (or syria) used that name, it's just recently, when they immigrate to Europe and be influenced by those of Syria and the church, they started to use Oromoyo. The right name for our people is Assyrian because WE are Assyrians, the world know us as Assyrians,and also because Assyrian have a political meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daywono (talk • contribs) 00:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC) You don´t Speak Assyrian because There is NO language called "assyrian" nor has there EVER existed a language called "assyrian" the Ancient but now extinct assyrians spoke Akkadian but that language is now dead as can be. Aramean is the language that all Syriacs(Arameans) speak even those who call themselves Assyrians this is fact don´t come up with pseoudo knowledge based in your own personal beliefs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikel swe (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Well, there is a big difference when you say that you speak Assyrian even tough you mean Aramaic, because the Assyrian language is dead otherwise you try to distort the facts or to deny it. For example an Arab who speak Aramaic as its mother tongue can´t say he is speaks Arabic, although he actually means Aramaic, but he justified it because he is an Arab. Italians do speak Italian! Italian is an independent language with Latin roots, but Latin and Italian aren´t the same because Italian has developed to a language of its own and an Italian wouldn´t understand you of you talk to him in Latin. Aramaic and Assyrian are two different and independent languages like German and English, because I often hear from some Assyrians that Aramaic comes from the Assyrian language or is a dialect of it, which is totally wrong. Why do you say we are Assyrians when already mentioned that we are a mixed. So that means that we also could call us Sumerians or Phoenician. I've written the exmaple with the Germans and it doesn´t matter by which name we are known in the world. The Germans call themselves "Deutsche" not "Germanen" because they have nothing in common with the old Germans anymore neither cultural, religon nor language. In reality the history of our nation began with the christianisation not with the Assyrians, Arameans, Sumerians they are history and only the Aramaic language was leaved nothing else. We are completely new and have given up our pagan life and built a new culture based on Christianity with the Aramaic language. Even Aramaic was renamed in Syrian by churches to emphasize this radical change. We have became a new ethnic nation with Christianity. We are Syrians and many Arameans accept this name, but not Assyrian where is no connection to them. Maby it would be better to give our people a new name which is by far best option at the moment. The name should have a christian term which all can identify maby Tur Abdineans or something like that:)--Hansestd (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC) The right name for our people is Assyrian, because Syriac has a Christian meaning in the West and we will continue to be labelled as Christians of the middle east with no land and no name, and also because Assyrian is widely used by all denomination of our people. For the language, I say as an Assyrian nation we CAN call our Aramaic dialect Assyrian, Syriac or Aramaic. No Assyrian deny it's Aramean heritage which is primary the language. Then, We're not anymore Syrians since like you said Arabs took this name for their fake land. You know that Suryoyo come from Assyrian and you said we have no connection with the Assyrians ? Our people use continuesly the name Assyrian (Suryoyo) as an ethnic name and (mshiHoye or suroye for christians), long before "Aramean", everyone know this. Don't use the church to say that we are Arameans or Syrians, there is plenty exemple where our forefathers says we are Assyrians too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E42:5D80:8985:620B:FEF5:11A5 (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Arabs may have took the Syrian name, but why should we be any more Syrians? I don´t care about the Arabs call themselves Syrians, because I know who is really meant by this name. After the fall of the Assyrian empire you get the Nedo-Babylonian empire and after that the Persian-empire. The Arameans are a much younger population than the Assyrians. But WE, the Suryoye or Syrians are part of all these populations as I said before! We are a mixed race, so why do you still remain on Assyrians and not Sumerians? The Sumerians lived before the Assyrians in Mesopotamia or do you like the history of the ancient Assyrians more? With the term Syrian the Greeks designated the Arameans or Aramaic speaking nation, because they were ignorant to see that the people didn´t call themselves Assyrians even though the area they lived on was still known as Assyria after several centuries (read the expample i´ll give you with the name for Germans in Spanish). The Christian Syrians (so are Assyrians, Maronites, Arameans, Chaldeans etc what they are called nowadays) or Syriacs are ethnic SYRIANS of semitic orgin who original were throughout the Levant and Mesopotamia at home. The terms Syrian and Aramean (Greek: Aramaioi) are identical and designate one and the same ethnically people. Suryoyo may comes from Assyrian, but it has a different meaning in this case namely Syrian=Arameans or Aramean speaking people who became Christians, not Syrian=Assyrian or Syrian=Arabs. The right name is Syrian. My parents and grandparents always said we are Suryoye and i am proud about it. --Hansestd (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I don't care if you call YOURSELF Syrian, but to the world it means citizen of the Arab republic of Syria, don't you get it ? The world will never see us as a nation if we follow what you say. You can say that YOU are a citizen of The Arab Republic of Syria but not our whole people, again we maybe Syrians, Assyrians or Arameans or other ancient people of North-Mesopotamia but we can not be qualified anymore as a 'Syrian' nation or people; you are a citizen of the state where you live, but your nation is Assyria... like the kurd, they never say we're Iraqi or Turk or Syrian, They say Kurd and are referred as Kurds in the West. Assyrian is our name that unite us All. I'm also Suryoyo and I'm proud about my ancestors, may they be Assyrians or Arameans, but again Assyrian has today a political meaning so we Have to use it, in order to be recognized by the West as one of the people of the Middle-East, not to be Iraqi christians or Syrians christians or Turkey's christians... I'don't care about what's the 'best' history... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daywono (talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Why are you so upset? In your first entry there was the talk that we are ethnic Assyrians and this was the topic for the following entries. Like it or not, but we are ETHNIC SYRIANS and unfortunately there is an Arab state by that name, but I would never get the idea to take the name of an ancient nation like the Assyrians and tinker me a new identity like a little child and this is the reason why so many are angry about it! Don´t tell me I am the only one here and 99,99% of our people agree with you! What do you mean with political meaning? Maby on local level somewhere in Kurdistan and the United States, where most Assyrian nationalists from Iraq have emigrated and can easily spread their ideas via the English language and English Wikipedia site. What about the other communities or churches? Especially in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden most of our people are Syrian-Orthodox there and call themselves as Aramean and they are known by this name, not as Assyrian. By your logic the term Aramean would also have a political meaning in the West today and this means that you also have to respect their attitude! To come back to this Wikipedia article again it should be called Syriac people only as an ethnicity without political meaning such as Assyrian, Chaldean or Aramean. I know you don´t like it because Syriac would be associated with Syriac-Orthodox Church right!? For political matters do sub pages called Assyrians (present), Arameans (present), Syriac-Assyrians or Syriac-Arameans and please remove silly none Christian personalities like Shalmaneser otherwise we also have to add Aramean persons like Ben-Hadad I to this page to be fair. If you are really interested to have a unification of our people on political level, then you must be willing to compromise and not ignore the majority of us and go your own way which includes a flag and the name, but let our history alone! --Hansestd (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Syrians don't unite us at all, but in our language i think Suryoye is the right name, othuroyo was a new name. But I maintain, we should'nt use the term Syrians since it means arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daywono (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Syrians unites us only as an ethnicity with the same language, religion and culture that's it. I have no doubt for this name for our ethnicity and everything else would be historical falsification. On political level we are not united otherwise we wouldn´t have "Assyrian", "Aramean" and "Chaldean" groups out there. But I agree we you Daywono I wouldn´t use the Syrian name for politics today except for our ethnicity of course, where our identity now times is based on and many people seem to forget this. But the question is, if all Syriac people must be forced to merge on political level. Even that will not happen, when already many of us don´t know their identity and chases ancient peoples. Of course it would be great to see one single group with one flag and name, but there is no reason to say there can´t be even more groups with different (only) political names such as "Assyrian" or "Aramean" to be recognized by the world. Arabs are also known by different names in politics such as Iraqis, Algerians or Egyptians, but they are united by their Arab background. In magazines people in Iran are known by thier political name namely Iranian and not Persian (ethnicity) and I bet many people don´t know it. If you keep your Assyrian flag in the camera the world will call you Assyrian and not according to your ethnicity and the same applies for Arameans. Don´t worry about it.--Hansestd (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
My two cents is that we should do as the Swedish article does writing Aramean/Asyrian/Chaldean and in the article mention that it is so because a name conflict exists. And to those who said that the Aramaean people assimilated in to the Assyrian people are wrong by the definition of the word Assimilation in almost all known cases where assmilation of a people has been successful it always the people being occupied that take the language of the people they got assimilated with in this case the Arameans if truly assimilated would have spoken akkadian and not reversed which shows that the so called assimilation was very unsuccessful or more likely it just didn´t happen. The ancient Assyrians was waring allot being a people of the sword which most likely rendered thei men extinct, that left the Arameans who where a people of the Pen and didn´t care much for wars to influence the Assyrians to take their language and traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikel swe (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Assyrians and Arameans are actually two different peoples anyway! There is CULTURAL similarity, but they speak differing languages, live in different regions and have different genetic profiles. Yepiskoposian et al., Iran and the Caucasus, Volume 10, Number 2, 2006, pp. 191-208(18), "Genetic Testing of Language Replacement Hypothesis in Southwest Asia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
@talk..There never was a Syrian Race in Antiquity, or now. The term Syrian is an Indo-European, Indo-Anatolian and Hellenic corruption of Assyrian...the vast majority of scholars accept this, and it is backed up by archaeological proof in the form of the Cinekoy Inscription. Initially the term meant Assyrian to the Indo-European speakers of Asia Minor, and it applied to the inhabitants of the land of Assyria (which did not include modern Syria or Lebanon, except the northeast corner of Syria). Under the Seleucids the term was also applied to The Levant, an area known previously as The Land of the Amurru, Aram, Aramea and Eber Nari..a land where (excepting the north east) the inhabitants were never Assyrians (or Syrians=Assyrians) but Amorites, Eblaites, Arameans, Phoenicians, Ugarites etc. The term Syrian originally meant Assyrian, it is now inaccurate to use this term when describing Assyria proper or the Assyrian people. Chaldean Catholics ARE however Assyrians, ones who entered communion with Rome between the 16th and 18th centuries, and most do accept they are ethnically Assyrian. Most Christians in Syria ARE actually Arameans, they are culturally similar, but geographically, ethnically, historically, linguistically and genetically distinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Where does the word Syrian come from? It comes from the word Assyrian. So how can there be a Syrian Race, this is rubbish. The Greeks caused this confusion in 300 BCE. They called all of the Semites from what we now call Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Anatolia, Iran and Jordan as Syrians and we know this, so why are people still using Syrian and Aramean for the native people of Northern Iraq??????? Before the Selucid Empire the name Syrian just meant Assyrian people from Assyria, from then afterwards it applied to all sorts of unrelated peoples in different places, not one race or place. So there is no Syrian race, and if there ever was one, it meant the Assyrian race. How can some people not get this???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.29.174 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC) I doubt that any of you "Assyrians" have read the comments above you. Then why are you not writing comments directly to Hansestd13 or Maikel swe statements. You always give the same garbage of you and do not get into a real discussion. Should I help you?? 92.26.29.174: "Where does the word Syrian come from?" Hansestd13: "...With the term Syrian the Greeks designated the Arameans or Aramaic speaking nation, because they were ignorant to see that the people didn´t call themselves Assyrians even though the area they lived on was still known as Assyria after several centuries (read the expample i´ll give you with the name for Germans in Spanish)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZUoreu9 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Simeon Stylites was not Assyrian
He was from the extreme northwest of syria in modern day adana. There is no mention ever of him having Assyrian ancestry, only syrian ancestry and the definition of "syrian" is still debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuryanAntiochia (talk • contribs) 08:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Syrian and Assyrian are being used interchangeably in the article. As in the descendants of people of the Syrian race in antiquity came to be frequently known as Assyrians in modern times.--Kathovo talk 14:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
They should not be used interchangeably. There is no evidence connecting the West Syrians of Antiquity to those Christians that hail from the Nineveh plains. In fact there is undeniable evidence that the term Syrian was applied on those Arameans west of the Euphrates, and not the people who called themselves Assyrian, Ashurian, or Othurian. In fact the quotes used to back up the assumption that the term Syrians was applied to the Assyrians are from people who under examination claim things contradicting many other historians. Palestine was part of Syria in the antiquity, so what makes you think Assyria(or appropriately called Othur) was really Syrian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.240.87 (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
@talk - There never was a Syrian Race in Antiquity or now. As you well know, the term Syrian is an Indo-European, Indo-Anatolian and Hellenic corruption of Assyrian...the vast majority of scholars accept this, and it is backed up by archaeological proof in the form of the Cinekoy inscription. Initially the term meant Assyrian to the Indo-European speakers of Asia Minor. Under the Seleucids the term was also applied to The Levant, an area known previously as The Land of the Amurru, Aram, Aramea and Eber Nari..a land where (excepting the north east) the inhabitants were never Assyrians (or Syrians) but Amorites, Eblaites, Arameans, Phoenicians, Ugarites etc. The term Syrian originally meant Assyrian, it is now inaccurate to use this term when describing Assyria proper or the Assyrian people...UNLESS it is explained that it meant Assyrian in antiquity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2014
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi,please,
I want to change the arabic (banu ashoor) to the Syriac name of our people : ܣܘܪܝܝܐ. Why did you put Arabic instead of Syriac ? this is completely non sense, it would be like writing (in French) Peuple Anglais in the English people page... Plus, banu ashoor is completely false... Arabs never call us by that name, they use Ashuri or Suryani... 'AynHaylo (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you, please, add the word ܣܘܪܝܝܐ like other people's wikipedia page where their name are spelled in their language and alphabet ?'AynHaylo (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Done, added name unvocalised and without syame, transliteration is omitted since it varies.--Kathovo talk 09:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Assyrians in Syria
By simple math if 40 Syr Catholic + 40 Chaldean + 40 both Assyrian + 200 Syr Orthodox total number would be between 300 - 400 thousand.[3][4][5]. Gabriel Moushe confirms this by citing 400-500 including the Maronites.[6]--Kathovo talk 12:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your numbers, Kathovo. The numbers currently listed seem highly inflated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
In Syria alone the Syriac Orthodox Church members range between 700,000 and 800,000 people, just in the Nothern al Hassakah Governorate about 200,000 mostly Syriac Orthodox Assyrians. The most sources are not very accurate and old, there are no real statistics about our people in Syria, but the most new estimates put the Syriac Orthodox Christians in Syria at 800,000 and 80,000 in the USA http://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2014/04/article_3083979.html/ Elvis214 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- You mentioned 200,000 in Hasaka which is a number I find reasonable 2 decades ago when most of those Assyrians ended up in Germany and Syria. I can't imagine that 600,000 would live only in Aleppo and Damascus. We know that Greek Orthodox and Catholic make up the first and second largest denominations, that wouldn't leave much for Assyrians. BTW news articles are not dedicated sources, they probably got their figures from Wikipedia.--Kathovo talk 19:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Pictures of Assyrians?
What ever happened to pictures of ancient Assyrian kings such as Sargon and Essarhaddon that were originally included in the picture template at the upper right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Some should be added back, The pictures should reflect the Assyrians through the ages. Maybe someone who wants to split modern Assyrians from their ancestors with a POV agenda has done this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.29.174 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- I myself am agnostic about those specific pictures. Ancient Assyrians spoke a different language, had a different religious and customs than modern ones. One can claim since modern Italians are different from Romans then there should be a distinction here as well. I do believe in certain continuities but this still only makes them ancestors of Assyrians, something similar to how French relate to the ancient Franks.--Kathovo talk 19:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Unless we have good sources that there is direct continuity, then they should no more be included here than Alexander should be included as Macedonian. — kwami (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
???? There are PLENTY of sources!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Misinformed Information
| disruptive soapboxing thread |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
((The Assyrians (Syriac: ܣܘܪܝܝܐ), also known as Syrians, Syriacs, Arameans, and Chaldeans (see names of Syriac Christians), are an ethnic group whose origins lie in ancient Mesopotamia. They are a Semitic people who speak, read, and write distinct dialects of Eastern Aramaic exclusive to Mesopotamia and its immediate surroundings.)) First chaldeans do not exist as ethnic group, some followers of the East Catholic Church since the sixteenth century started to called themselves Chaldeans, but they have nothing to do with the Chaldean dynasty that ruled Babylon. Secondly Syrians (السريان) are not Assyrians, Ashourians (اشوريين, اثوريين), not the same ethnic group. Greek historians named the Arameans of syria (Syrian), The Arabs named All the Arameans(Nabat نبط) and Syrian سريان.. Nabat is Aramaic tribe, Nabataeans Who call themselves Assyrians nowdays they don't descendants the ancient Assyrians(Ashourians), they are Syrians Arameans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.5.245 (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
|
Syrians not Assyrians
| disruptive soapboxing thread |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The name "Assyrian" (Ashourians) is new name of group of Syrians, the name "Assyrian" is never used at all before the 19th century. the historical name to what is currently called the Assyrians are the "Syrians" (specifically "Syrian Nestorians) The new Assyrians they are not an ethnic group separate from the rest of Syrians. ethnically they were and still Syrians there is no different from the rest of Syrians. The only difference between the the new-Assyrians and the rest of Syrians is the Church that they belong to, and that was historically called the Nestorian Church. The name "Assyrians" launched a on Syrians Nestorians for the first time in the 19th century under the influence of the British explorers and missionaries. The goal of launching this name on them was to try and separate them from their surroundings and find isolationist tendency among them. In the 19th century the French persuaded the Maronites of Lebanon, that they are separate people from their surroundings. This is the same as what happened in the the Jazeera area. British persuaded Syrians Nestorians in the mandate of the people of Mosul that they separate from their surroundings and that they were the descendants of the ancient Assyrians. and of course Syrians Nestorians they are not ancient Assyrians. Syrians Nestorians do not differ from the rest of Syrians. They originally Aramean people residence the Gezira area and northern Iraq since the last millennium BC.
Assyrians are a extinct people had been living in Jazeera area 2,500 years ago. Christians in Syria and Iraq belong to 3 peoples: • Arabs • Syrians • Armenians What so called Assyrians is name of imaginary people invented during the 19th century under the direct influence of colonialism.
We still speak the official language of the Assyrian empire which is an Aramaic language with its particularity, we still retain some names which are only found among us (such as Ninus, Shamiram, Sanharib...), we may be Arameans or Assyrians ethnicaly, but, today 'Syrians' means citizen of the Arab Republic of Syria, we can't use that name anymore. Assyrian is OUR name, we don't say that we're 100% ethnically Assyrians, since the middle-east has been invaded by a lot of peoples, there was mass deportation etc... it's the same for 'Syrians' Today Syrians are mostly arameans, armenian, greek, arabs, and Iranians for kurds etc... Most of north Iraq is ethnically semitic, Assyrians, Jews, Arabs, Syrians, and kurds... Also the people from our churches who are in Iraq, Turkey and Syria are in no ways Arabs. The few Arabs who could be in our church could be found in Israel, Jordan and may be Lebanon. But I can tell you ONE THING, THOSE WHO SPEAK SURYOYO / SURYAYA ARE NOT Arabs, not Kurds or Armenians. Go and learn 7 names of your grandfathers before coming here and saying things which just aims at feed stupid peoples, stupid and false theories. Our People is spread in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and, sorry to inform you but as a NATION, we are Assyrians, our most prolific nationalists, from Ashur Yausef to Ninos Aho, are celebrated by the people of the 2 mother church ('idto Suryeyto trisat shubho and idto dmadenho d'Othuroye) for there writing, there love of our language and nation, so please, don't divide us, English, Americans, Australian, and new-zealand know us as Assyrians. Syrians are, today, another people, they have there wiki page, and we, Assyrians have our own.that's all.'AynHaylo (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC) |
Flag removal?
I noticed this IP edit removed the Syriac-Aramaic flag. This looks like a suspicious edit, but I know nothing of this subject. Alsee (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Economic demographics
I've read that the Coptic Christians in Egypt are generally more affluent than Muslim Egyptians. There appears to be a similar situation in Lebanon. Now what about the Syriac communities in Syria and Iraq? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Too many pictures in the right-hand side infobox
There are way too many pictures of Assyrians in the infobox. Around six or nine people are enough. Does anyone else agree there needs to stop being additions?
I think that the more people we have (prominent people of course), the better. The template can be rearranged to accommodate lots of pictures, for example the template for Italians. Assyriandude (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Then can we make it look more condensed like the Italians page? Because ours is too spaced out now.
I added 1 column which removed a row. It looks much better. If more people are added, we can switch to the Italian page version. I just have to crop a few of the portraits so that they are all the same size. Assyriandude (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Ridiculous
Syriac people (or Syrians/Arameans سريان/آراميون) are a different ethnic group from the Assyrians. They have a different language and national identity. It is unacceptable to get the "Syriac people" redirected here.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is certainly not the consensus among any past or modern scholars and academics. "Syriacs" might not say that they are "Assyrian," and "Assyrians" might not say they are "Syriacs," but both "groups" would certainly say that they are of the same people and heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
How is that unacceptable to get Syriac People here ? Why do you want to divide us ? ܙܳܟ ܡܶܩܫܰܬ ܗܰܬ ܘ ܒܰܒܳܟ , We are Assyrians/Syriac not 'Syrians' since this terms now refers to a citizen of the Arab Republic of Syria! We ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܐܘ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ are ONE PEOPLE, FROM MESOPOTAMIA : BETWEEN the TWO RIVERS. Don't associate us with Arabs and others 'Syrians' (Unfortunately they 'stole' our name). Can't Even write Syriac and you dare to say that Assyrians and Syriacs are two differents people ? We share the exact same language : Classical Syriac which is understandable by both Syriac/Assyrians, we share same customs and life style. In some Areas we lived together (For example Mydiat : where there was Chaldeans adherents and Syriacs Orthodoxs members, Dyarbakir (Omid), Qamishlo, in numerous village in what is today Irak...). We do not accept such claims which are completely false and just aims to feed all the misleading theories/claims of unscrupulous people! Bar-Neshro (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)ܒܪܒܪܩܐ
Culturally Assyrians are the same as Levantine Syriacs, however ethnically, linguistically, geographically and genetically they are not. Assyrians are those Syriac Christians from ASSYRIA; Ie Northern Iraq, Southeast Turkey and northeast Syria...a Christian from Damascus or Beirut is clearly not an Assyrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"and the now largely Arabic-speaking, but previously Western Aramaic-speaking Syriac-Aramean Western group ("Syrian Orthodox", and Syrian Catholic") found mainly in south central Turkey and Syria."
must change Western Aramaic-speaking to Eastern Aramaic-speaking, Turoyo and the few others dialects related to Turoyo are Eastern Aramaic dialects, if not there will be confusion with the true Western Aramaic-speaking people of Maaloula and surroundings villages. also Syriacs Orthodox/Catholic are also in Iraq... in Addition of this, those who speak arabic are mainly found in Syria and those who speak Aramaic are found in Turkey and Iraq (In Iraq they speak the same dialect as Eastern Syriacs/Assyrians). must also change Syrian Orthodox/Catholic to Syriac because Syrian refer to a citizen of the Arab Republic of Syria and not an ethnic Syriac. 'AynHaylo (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I approve of this change. Penguins53 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Penguins53
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Since Penguins53 says go for it, I would love to help out here, but in order not to make things worse, you need to be very clear. Is it only a matter of change "Western Aramaic-speaking" to "Eastern Aramaic-speaking" in the first case, and change "Syrian" to "Syriac" in two cases in the same sentence? Sam Sailor Sing 20:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm not clear. Yes it's primarily about change Western Aramaic to Eastern Aramaic and replace Syrian by Syriac.
I would also add Iraq as one of the native country of Syriacs since there is a few village and Monastery. I would also suppress the "now largely Arabic-speaking" since most of Syriacs especially those of Europe (those who are active culturaly and politicaly) speak Turoyo (There is 2 channel broadcasting in Turoyo : Suroyo Tv and Suryoyo Sat and one Web TV : Assyria TV) with some who speak the same dialects of the members of the Church of the East/Chaldean Catholic Church. 'AynHaylo (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, 'AynHaylo. Having spend a couple of minutes reading the talk page, I'll pass on this one and leave it for Kathovo. This I do solely due to my own incompetence regarding the subject and the article's editing history. Happy editing, Sam Sailor Sing 23:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've changed the divisions as requested and removed the reference since it doesn't state what it is claimed. As for name it is more complicated, during antiquities and middle ages "Syrian" was a more popular ethnonym as attested by names of various historical personalities, e.g. Ephrem the Syrian, Isaac the Syrian, Michael the Syrian, etc...--Kathovo talk 11:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The official name of this churches is Syriac. Syrian is no more used since it can refers to Arabs, Kurds or others citizen of Syria. This is the principal Reason. Secondly, you use the official name of the Assyrian church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church and Ancient church of The East, you should do this also for The two Antiochian Syriac Churches. If you based yourself on the historical names, just suppress Chaldean Catholic Church, Ancient Church of the East and just leave Church of the East. In the same passage, you use the official name of the Eastern Syriac Churches, but for the two Western Syriac Churches you use their old name... Also you should also add Iraq as one of the countries where Syriacs have historical presence : Maphrian of the East, Mor Matay Monastery, and few villages... 'AynHaylo (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well Syrian was a common historical name that is still widely used in academic circles, see for example [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] [16]... Removing the term will create even more confusion for those unfamiliar with the naming controversy.
- I will request lowering down protection level of this page so that you may edit the page yourself.--Kathovo talk 13:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I've edited it. I don't think it will bring more confusion for those unfamiliar with our naming controversy. Syrian is already mentioned at the beginning of the page and has a dedicated part for the name controversy. You should raise the editing level.'AynHaylo (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Shouldnt this naming issue be made clearer? Assyrians dont call themselves Arameans and they never have (they are a different race), and when you use the names 'Syrians' and 'Syriacs' these are historical derivatives of 'Assyrians' originally, but now Syrian means a citizen of Syria, most of these are now Arabs, Kurds and Syriac Arameans. Chaldean is only a religious term. All this should be made much clearer. The way it is written makes it look like Assyrians are Syrians or Arameans or related to the old Chaldean tribe. You can point out what some scholars called them and why in a seperate paragraph, because it is misleading at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.29.174 (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 10 May 2014
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No move. Either option is acceptable by the relevant guidelines, and there's no consensus the proposed title is superior for other reasons. Cúchullain t/c 17:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Assyrian people → Assyrians – Common and standard form. Jaqeli (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
- Oppose, both formats are equally acceptable so no reason to move. False premise that "Foo people" is not common or standard. Both formats are widely used and there are multiple "Foo people" articles per Irish people, English people, French people, Syrian people and many others. DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, per above.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support: the name as is, "Assyrian people," is clunky. The term "people" is better reserved for nationalities and not ethnicities. Furthermore, it adds confusion to the topic; it can make people think that Assyrians are are group of people, like a tribe or nomadic group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nom and User:DeCausa (sic). The proposed name is precise while being more common and more concise. Unlike the examples given by User:DeCausa of Irish, English, and French which are ambiguous without "people" appended, "Assyrians" is not. (Note that the former examples are DAB pages while the latter redirects here.) — AjaxSmack 16:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Syrian people was an example as well. Brazilian people, Jamaican people, Palestinian people etc etc DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that both forms are used and I have no big problem with either but there are policy reasons to go with the more common and concise form. — AjaxSmack 10:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Syrian people was an example as well. Brazilian people, Jamaican people, Palestinian people etc etc DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Both forms are "common" and "standard." Personally, I prefer the "X people" form and feel it reads better. If there's no reason given other than personal preference to move it, then oppose. SnowFire (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Both the nominator and I gave policy-based opinions (WP:UCN/WP:CONCISE). Neither of these are personal preference, at least on my part, unlike "I prefer the 'X people' form and feel it reads better". — AjaxSmack 10:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not hiding the fact it's my personal preference. The nominator said "Common and standard form" which presumably implies "X people" is not an understandable "common and standard" name. This is simply wrong as a quick trip to Google will show. "Assyrians" is more concise, I'll grant that, but that is a comparatively minor factor here - it's equivalent in weight to article title stability, for instance, which would argue for keeping it here. SnowFire (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Move rationale has been effectively challenged above, and the other arguments to move seem to be purely personal preference. Against this, Assyrians is seriously ambiguous, being more often used to mean the people of the Assyrian Empire, as distinct from for example the Akkadians, who are also part of the Assyrian people but are not in this sense Assyrians. (There may even be a case for moving the article currently at Assyria.) Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
I'm guessing that there are previous move discussions in the archives of this talk page... has anyone looked at them to see whether any of the discussion there is relevant? Andrewa (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Why Assyrian Nationalism Will Fail
| disruptive soapboxing thread |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Assyrians in Iraq are a minority; the majority of the Aramaic speaking Christians in Iraq are either Chaldean or Syriac, neither of the two claim to be Assyrian. There are Assyrians that are part of each church, do not confuse a pupil that attends the Chaldean Catholic/Syriac Orthodox Church, but calls himself Assyrian. Chaldeans are of Arab ancestry and Syriacs are of Aramean ancestry. Assyrians have nothing to do with ancient Assyrians. They are simply a group of Persian Christians/Armenians that were fooled by British Evangelists. They are Ah-Toor-A-Yah(Atoraya), meaning the people of the mountains, not Assyrians pertaining to Assur. Their issue is complex and they are bending the truth about the Christians of the Middle East, specifically the Syriacs and Chaldeans. They have nothing that proves that they are in fact Assyrian; the only thing they have is references pertaining to Assyrian Nationalists, which many have been successfully refuted by Syriac and Western scholars. They do not seek to unite neither of the groups, they simply wish to push their own agenda so that they can claim benefits from Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. Without Syriacs or Chaldeans on their side, they are unable to achieve any of their goals. They are not going anywhere in politics, the only threat they oppose is here on Wikipedia where they can misconstrued history. The joke is on them however because no scholar or researcher uses Wikipedia as a reference. They are a joke in Iraq and many of them ran during the seventies because their citizenship were stripped for being Iranians, which they truly are. Neither Syriacs or Chaldeans faced that issue in Iraq during the seventies. Many Assyrians speak funny Aramaic and Arabic. Their Aramaic does not sound like Syriac or Chaldean Aramaic; it sounds much like Persian than anything. They are not from Iraq as they have you believe, most of them come from Iran, but because of the Sykes-Picot Agreement many of them immigrated from Iran. They were considered as "ajam" in Iraq. The Massacre of Simele of 1933, was due to their fake Assyrian nationalism. The Syriacs and Chaldeans saved them from ethnic cleansing and this is how they repay them. They are much related to Kurds more than anyone in Iraq, this is apparent through their common mannerisms and nationalism, as well as their language, accent, and looks. Assyrians, please continue to disgrace yourselves, please, the more the merrier. The truth hurts. I feel sorry for your children because they are fed this fake idea of Assyrianization. Many of them will not know that they in fact are Kurds, Persians, or Armenians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommonSenseofCourse (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC) You are the biggest troll that we have ever seen on this page, we Assyrians are Assyrians, we Syriacs are Assyrians, we Chaldeans are Assyrians. That is all. We are one people, Assyrians are Syriacs and vice versa. With all respect to the Armenians, Kurds, Arabs and Persians, we are not a part of you, we are our own people with our own language (Suryaya/Suryoyo ܣܘܪܝܝܐ) and our own religion. Our name : Suryoye or Suryaye goes back to thousand years ago, this has been more than 2500 years that we use this terms to designate us as a people, our language is an Aramaic language influenced by Akkadian (mainly loanwords but with a few grammaticals structures). .ܐܚܢܐ ܚܕ ܥܡܐܢܐ݂ ܟܠܢ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܡܢ ܐܫܘܪ ܡܘܬܐ ܠܒܥܠܕܒܒܐ ܘ ܟܝܢ/ ܚܝܢ Here is a video of us Assyrians, taking up arms and forming millitia (around 3000 for the Assyrian democratic movement and around 2000 for the Assyrian Assyrian Patriotic Movement) in Iraq (source AFP : Agence France Presse) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cxcr7SLyso I will leave you with the following pages, we are Assyrians/Syriacs those two terms are synonyms: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Syriac-Military-Council-MFS/495168480591866 https://www.facebook.com/SyriacsNews?ref=stream https://www.facebook.com/pages/Institut-Assyro-Chald%C3%A9en-Syriaque-FRANCE/191535884215845?ref=stream https://www.facebook.com/pages/ESU-Youth/633474350000894 https://fr-fr.facebook.com/pages/Institut-dEtudes-Aram%C3%A9ennes/384281555025566 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Assyrische-Br%C3%BCderschaft-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%86/500892583268758 https://www.facebook.com/pages/%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B4%D8%A7-Dwekh-Nawsha/691995807561137 'AynHaylo (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC) We Arameans are Arameans; we Syriacs are Arameans! If you call him/her a troll then you are the biggest liar on earth with your false claims. Do you speak Akkadian to prove that our Aramaic language was heavily influenced by Akkadian? Give us some samples, because most of you are not able to prove it. My family is from al-Hasakah, Syria and neither my parents, grandparents nor our friends from there referred themselves as pseudo Othuroye. They have always referred themselves as Suryoye (members of the Syriac-Orthodox Church = Christians) and as Oromoye (ethnicity). http://www.aramnahrin.org/English/index_en.htm , To All umthonoye Oromoye:
Hi, my family is from Tur'Abdin, the heartland of Suryoye (and gabore by the way). And in Tur'Abdin, nobody called themselves Oromoye or Othuroye. they just used Suryoye as a name for our people. Oromoye is a new name that appears in the 50's while Othuroye, appeared in the end of the 19th century. Suryoyo in our language refers to our ethnicity and not to Christians. Everybody knows that Suryoyo comes ultimately from Ashur. There is evidences, read the paper of professor Simo Parpola:
http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v18n2/Parpola-identity_Article%20-Final.pdf In Syria, we only used Suryoyo as well and even in the diaspora we are still using this name in Aramaic. Oromoyo is definitely not a new name for us, because we already knew it in Syria, but we did not use it in our daily life. The old, pre-Christian name Aramean gained popularity especially in the diaspora, because unlike in Arabic and Turkish you do not have two designations for Syrian in most other languages such as English. Most of them do not wanted to be associated with Muslims or Arabs. This is the reason why the Syriac-Orthodox Church replaced "Syrian" with "Syriac". My grandparents were born in the 1920s and they did not care about nationalism or ethnicity topics and they always said that Suryoyo means Christian no matter if it is derived from Assyrian or not. Assyrians and Chaldeans are those people who are no Syriac-Orthodox Christians and belong to other churches, but ethnically we are the same. The name Aramean was known long before the 1950s: Abu Al-husayn 'ali Ibn Al-husayn Al-mas'udi (born 895 in Baghdad, died 957 in al- Fustat,Egypt) says: "Tur Abdin is the mountain where remnants of the Aramean Syrians still survive." Karl Eduard Sachau (born in 1845, died in 1930): "The nation of the Arameans: This national name later, mainly in consequence of Jewish-Christian literature influences, gave way to the Greek designation Syrians." Flavius Josephus (c. 37 – c. 100 AD (or CE)) was a 1st century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and later settled in Rome. He says: "Aram had the Arameans, which the Greeks called Syrians." Prof. Theodor Nöldeke (born in 1836, died in 1930): "Since the times of Alexander [the Great], if not already somewhat earlier, people have started to transfer the name of the Syrians exclusively over the prevailing in Syria nationality, and in this way this originally political-geographical term became an ethnological one that was identified with the local Arameans." "Assyrian is well known in English speaking countries", Assyrian is known in English speaking countries thanks to Assyrian fascists from Iraq and unfortunately English is lingua franca, so they can easily spread their propaganda around the world. "No Assyrians denies its Aramean heritage (history and language)", Those people who say that want to mislead the Arameans so that they align with the Assyrians and forget their Aramean/Syrian Christian identity by paying homage to Assyrian/Akkadian history. Most Assyrians claim to speak Assyrian (Akkadian) written with Aramaic letters, and because the Arameans originated in Syria they can´t be of Aramean ancestry. Assyrians claim also that our people always called themselves as Othuroye. You are the first Assyrian I know who says that we only used Suryoyo (Syrian in English) in our homeland, which is right. "Suryoyo come from Ashur", Suryoyo is a synonym for us Arameans especially for those Arameans who became Christians and adopt the Greek designation to distinguish themselves from the pagan Arameans. I do not deny that Suryoyo may derives from Assyria although other theories from scholars exist. But neither me nor my family or the others have ever associated Suryoyo with the old Assyrians, only with Christianity and the Arameans. "Assyrian nationalism began long before the Aramean nationalism.", this doesn´t make it any better or is a proof that we are Assyrians. You say that the Aramean nationalism was supported by the church. What about the "Assyrian" Church of the East and the European colonists and missionaries who brainwashed the Suryoye over there in Iraq? Should I point out the word "Assyrian" in the churches name is of European origin and was geographically meant to avoid the Nestorian name. I doubt there are there any chronicles from the "Assyrian" Church of the East to support an Assyrian racial identity before the 19th century. --Suryoyo6544 (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Oromoyo is a new name for our people, even the church said it. "Suryoyo is a synonym for us Arameans especially for those Arameans who became Christians and adopt the Greek designation to distinguish themselves from the pagan Arameans" Do you have evidence of this ? Assyrians is the name of Iranian-Iraqi Christians in iraq the name is only used among them not by the Sereyan people in Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq. Sereyan is the only name of our people, the name Sereyan سريان is mentioned in the Arab historical books as the indigenous people of Syria and Iraq and Jordan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.78.47.224 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC) WOW, "The Arab historical books" is that your ultimate source ? WE ARE the indegenous people of MESOPOTAMIA, more precisely, North-Mesopotamia, and, you use, as a source, a book written by ARABS, a people who colonized Mesopotamia and came long after Akkadians, Assyrians, Arameans, Hitites, Mitani people who were there at least 2000 years before Arabic/Islamic civilization rise. We have 3000 years of uninterrupted written history (Aramaic language) and you dare take this book as a source ? We are ܣܘܪܝܝܐ, which comes from Assyrian, IT has been proven, all prominent assyriologists agree that we are Assyrians, READ ALL THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE before coming here and edit the page.'AynHaylo (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC) @AynHaylo: The prominent Assyriologists Prof R.Rollinger considers it to be etymological. In other words very specific to how the word at that point in time developed or originated and not reflection of ethnicity.Sr 76 (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC) |
Artur Boháč - Another Questionable reference
Artur Boháč was a GEOGRAPHY student from the Czech Republic that presented a paper on GLOBALIZATION, to use this a reference sighting "Assyrian Continuity" is absurd.
Sr 76 (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Lede: on names- Syrians, Arameans, Syriacs, Chaldeans?
Regardless which name is "more correct", Arameans is also used by scholars. See here and here for examples. Please do not remove them.--Kathovo talk 13:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Aramean is not used by Scholars to describe those people from Northern Iraq and its surrounds though. Scholars usually reserve that for Christians from Syria. Also, why use a name rejected by all Assyrians. Assyrians accept Assyrian, Chaldo-Assyrian and Syriac, but none refer to themselves as Syrian or Aramean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- [17][18][19] are just a few academic sources I collected in 5 minutes to support the usage of Arameans and Syrians.--Kathovo talk 09:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
But not by Assyrians themselves. We would not use foreign designations describing the English would we? So why use terms not used by Assyrians themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 12:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, Becker is in a minority position among scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 12:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- So Becker, Fiey, Wilmshurst, John Joseph, Macuch, Brock... are all in the minority, that's some big minority don't you think?--Kathovo talk 11:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Eddie Drood, we wouldn't use "foreign designations" describing the English because this is English Wikipedia. The analogy is closer to the Greeks calling themselves "Hellenes": we nevertheless use Greeks here. The only issue is what are they called in English-language literature, and it seems from Kathovo's links that Aramean is used. It's not relevant that Assyrians may or may not object - although if it is proporly sourced it could be noted that Assyrians do object to it. DeCausa (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I put an edit in regarding names, with three references, and pointed out that in the west a number of other terms were used ie Syrians, Arameans etc were used by various western sources. This was referenced and balanced, but removed???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Shouldnt this be made clearer? Assyrians dont call themselves Arameans (they are a different race), and when you use the names 'Syrians' and 'Syriacs' these are historical derivatives of 'Assyrians' originally, but now Syrian means a citizen of Syria, most of these are now Arabs, Kurds and Syriac Arameans. Chaldean is only a religious term. All this should be made much clearer. The way it is written makes it look like Assyrians are Syrians or Arameans or related to the old Chaldean tribe. You can pint out what scholars called them and why in a seperate paragraph, because it is misleading.
@talk and talk The difference here is Greeks call themselves Hellenes, whereas Assyrians never call themselves Arameans. And the useage of Arameans is usually used to refer to Syriac Christians from Syria, not northern Iraq. Links were also provided from numerous scholars stating that the original and proper name was Assyrians, and that other names were later add ons. I propose a change to this section, with a separate paragraph explaining the different useages in English. Also, Kathovo, many scholars do not use the term Aramean in reference to Assyrians, and Assyria/Athura/Assuristan was never called Aram. Syria and Syrian are generally accepted to be originally only derivatives of Assyria, not explaining this clearly leads readers to assume Assyrians are connected to the modern term Syria, a largely Arab Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 04:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're putting the conflict as yourself against the scholars which won't get you anywhere. In Wikipedia verifiability beats truth anytime.--Kathovo talk 09:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@talk - Scholars? I can provide links to scholars who say clearly that Assyrians are Assyrians, and these later names are both innacurate and Western add ons. Artur Bohac a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Travis, Hannibal. Genocide in the Middle East: The Ottoman Empire, Iraq, and Sudan. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2010, 2007, pp. 237-77, 293–294, Hannibal Travis http://conference.osu.eu/globalization/publ/08-bohac.pdf, Mordechai Nisan Nisan, M. 2002. Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle for Self Expression .Jefferson: McFarland & Company., Eden Naby [[ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/02/the_end_of_christianity_in_the_middle_east]], as well as Biggs, Frye, Parpola, Tsertelli, Badger, Brinkman etc etc...So, providing links from SCHOLARS to support this position, which you seem to accept as TRUTH, does not count? Or do only certain scholars count? Once more, the other names issue should be in a separate short paragraph. And WHY remove Ashuriyun, Assouri and Chaldo-Assyrian ??? Is it because they sound too Assyrian??
Basically, if I can support my edits with references, I should not have them reverted. I propose to edit again, WITH Scholarly References. So there can be no reason to revert it again on the grounds that they are unsupported by academic study and opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 08:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- As I mentioned, some identify as Assyrians others as Arameans or Chaldeans etc. None of the sources you bring prove what you claim, bring a sufficient number of scholarly sources that claim that "only" Assyrian is the correct form. Ashuriyun is a modern Arabic names and Assouri is Armenian, it makes no sense to put those names in the lede.--Kathovo talk 19:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@talk - That is simply incorrect. (A) - No Assyrians identify as Arameans. This article is about Assyrian People from what was Assyria, Athura, Assuristan (Mesopotamia, modern Northern Iraq) and NOT Middle Eastern Christians in general. Chaldean Catholic is a theological term which most Chaldean catholics accept as such, as they do the inclusive term Chaldo-Assyrian, which is more accurate and valid, and yet utterly illogically removed by yourself!!!!. I guess because the word Assyrian is mentioned, this goes against your personal opinion.
(B) Ashuriyun is NOT a modern term, it is Medieval, circa 12th century AD, it PREDATES Chaldean and Aramean as a term used to describe Assyrians from Mesopotamia, as does Assouri in relation to Chaldean, therefore these terms are more valid than those. Again, I guess because the word Assyrian is mentioned, this goes against your personal opinion.
(C) The terms Syrian and Syriac originally derived from Assyrian, most scholars accept this, and it is mainstream opinion. Originally it meant only Assyrian, it was only during the Seleucid Empire, some 600 years after the term was first used to describe Assyria, that the term was added as a description of The Levant also. If these names are to be used, this should be pointed out.
(D) The term Syrian is a misnomer when applied to Assyrians today, as it refers to the Syrian Arab Republic and refers to a geographic region not inhabited by Assyrians and which was never Assyria.
(E) I did not state that Assyrian was the ONLY term used to describe Assyrians, but that it was the oldest, the preferred term and the most accurate. Also that the other terms were applied by outside, largely Western sources from the Seleucid period onwards.
(F) The numerous sources I provided state point (E) quite acceptably.
(G) The other names listed at the beginning of the article confuse, at least without an explanation of how they came to be.
(H) There are Separate Wiki entries for Arameans, Arameanism and Phoenicianism which cover those Near Eastern Christians who are not Assyrians, do not come from Assyria/Mesopotamia/Iraq and do not see themselves as Assyrians. They should have their own sections.
(I) There is no such Ethnicity as Syrian or Syriac. As a Nation, Syria refers to the Syrian Arab Republic. Originally Syrian and Syriac meant Assyria specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- (a) This is still your own opinion, it contradicts Brock's, who is probably the most authoritative figure on the history and culture of Syriac Christianity.
- (b) "Ashuriyun is NOT a modern term, it is Medieval", care to show a reference to this claim? It is still an Arabic name, it's like you start the British people article with: "British also known as Les Britanniques".
- (c) Nobody disputes that one derives from the other, it still doesn't mean we should ditch the more modern one. Tajik is derived from the Arab tribe of "Tayy", does this mean that Tajik is fake and we should rename it to Tayy?
- (D) and (E) Again this contradicts with Brock's assertion. Bring a reference as authoritative as Brock then we can argue about this.
- (F) You just mention names, How are supposed to verify those claims without proper references? i.e. book names and page numbers.
- (G) On the contrary, they serve to show that this article talks exactly about the same people that Morony calls Arameans and O'Leary calls Syrians. Not having them will create a confusion.
- (H) They are still considered the same people with different names, as per Iraqi, American, Swedish, Australian census bureaus, as well as various leading political and nationalist organisations that support compound names such as Motua, here is aquote from Zowaa as well:[20]
| “ | ... It is characterized by the unity among our people with their multiple names as Syriac, Arameic, Chaldean, Assyrian the true inheritors of the Babylonian and Assyrian civilization of Mesopotamia – Beth Nahrain. | ” |
- (I) Strange claim, how can reconcile this with the book titled "History of the Syrian Nation" written by an Assyrian intellectual from Urmia in 1910. Again your sourceless claim is contradicted by Macuch and Brock.--Kathovo talk 10:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Just want to give my opinion :
As an Assyrian nationalist, I would suppress Arameans, Chaldean and Syriac.
But unfortunately, a part of our people are attached to those terms which are a part of our identity, culture and history.
At international level, like Kathovo mentioned it, our people is not recognized only under the name Assyrian :
Iraq use (or used not sure) the term Chaldo-Assyrian.
France also use the term : Assyro-chaldéen for all our people.
USA use the term chaldean/assyrian/syriac since 2000. same for Sweden.
For the term Syrian, it should only be mentioned in the section self-designation for the simple reason that it refers to a citizen of the state of the Arab Republic of Syria... 'AynHaylo (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Very simply, if these other names are mentioned, there needs to be a short section explaining them. All of the Christians of the Middle East very clearly are not identical, any more than the Muslims are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@talk The term Ashuriyun was first mentioned in the 10th century AD by Abu al-Faraj Muhammad Ibn Ishaq al-Nadim, hardly a modern term, and it certainly predates Chaldean and Aramean.......According to Bayard Dodge, in his index titled Fihrist al-Nadim, Abu al-Faraj Muhammad Ibn Ishaq al-Nadim, who described many people, gives a definition of the word Ashuriyun (Arabic for Assyrians) as such: Their master and chief is named Ibn Siqtiri Ibn Ashuri. They collect revenues and profits. In some things they agree with the Jews and about other things they disagree with them. They appear to be a sect of Jesus (Dodge 1970).Italic textThe Fihrist (Catalog): A Tench Century Survey of Islamic Culture. Abu 'l Faraj Muhammad ibn Ishaq al Nadim. Great Books of the Islamic World, Kazi Publications. Translator: Bayard Dodge.
And yes, Assyrians used Syrian BECAUSE it originally meant Assyrian, this IS mainstream opinion among linguists, historians and orientalists today.
Michael the Syrian - ... That even if their name is now "Syrian", they are originally "Assyrians" and they have had many honourable kings... Syria is in the west of Euphrates, and its inhabitants who are talking our Aramaic language, and who are so-called "Syrians", are only a part of the "all" (the all meaning Aramaic speaking Christians), while the other part which was in the east of Euphrates, going to Persia, had many kings from Assyria and Babylon and Urhay... Assyrians, who were called "Syrians" by the Greeks, were also the same Assyrians, I mean "Assyrians" from "Assur" (Ashur) who built the city of Nineveh.Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 12:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Michael the Syrian - "...the kingdoms which have been established in antiquity by our race, (that of) the Arameans, namely the descendants of Aram, who were called Syriac." Michael the Syrian is talking about those people who WERE of Assyrian origin but not ARE Assyrian. Seriously do you consider modern Egyptians as the same Egyptians I mean those people who lived in ancient times and built pyramids? They have nothing in common with them anymore because they are now Arabized and Islamized and the same can be said about the so called Assyrians who were assimilated into Aramaic culture and intermixed with Arameans. Do you think just because Assyrians lived in Mesopotamia they are the owner of it? Why are Kurds, Turks and Arabs there if that is Assyria. Do you know what Migration Period is? Should I point out that even other Semitic ethnicities lived there before and after the Assyrians, e.g. the Arameans had many city-states on this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZUoreu9 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I actually found the text in original Arabic here, the exact text is:
الأسوريين وصاحبهم ورئيسهم يقال له بن سقطرى بن أسورى يسقون الأموال والمكاسب ويوافقون اليهود في شيء ويخالفونهم في شيء ويظهرون ملة عيسى.
- This ambiguous sect is named Aswariyīn after their leader bin Aswara, obviously they have nothing to do with "Nestorians" who are repeatedly called Suryān throughout this book.--Kathovo talk 14:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Well said @Kathovo: I am collecting "consensus" to have the forced redirection from "Syriac People" to "Assyrian People" removed, see the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syriac_people#Protected_edit_request_on_11_November_2014
@Kathovo:
Sr 76 (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Why is the term Assurayu removed? It is both the oldest and original term, yet it is always removed? Also, why cannot there be a paragraph under the lede explaining these names, they are indeed confusing. The inclusion of the innacurate term Aramean and the MODERN THEOLOGICAL term Chaldean are confusing if just left unexplained. Also, it should be made clear that Syrian derives from Assyrian....there after all no such race as Syrians or Syriacs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 14:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Assyrian people
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Assyrian people's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Frazee":
- From Shimun VIII Yohannan Sulaqa: Frazee, Charles A. (2006). Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire 1453–1923. Cambridge University Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-521-02700-7.
- From Chaldean Catholic Church: Charles A. Frazee, Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire 1453-1923, Cambridge University Press, 2006 ISBN 0-521-02700-4
- From Alqosh: Frazee, Charles A. (2006). Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire 1453-1923. Cambridge University Press. p. 210. ISBN 978-0-521-02700-7.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
ssyrians of iraq are called Athori why is this not mentioned in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.78.248.95 (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)