Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syriac Assyrians
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Syriac Assyrians
Find sources: Syriac Assyrians — news, books, scholar
Copied from talk page
This article is written from an Assyrianist point-of-view. Based on a few sources, it states that all Syriacs are Assyrians, while labelling those Syriacs who consider themselves Aramaeans as being ignorant of their own heritage. It should therefore, in my opinion, be deleted. Information can be merged with either the Syriacs page or the Assyrian people page. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No stance - repairing malformed nomination -- saberwyn 07:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - I do agree that the Syriac Orthodox situation is alot more complicated then the Chaldean Catholic one. Chaldean 14:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - How is it more complicated? The name of their Church, in Swedish, is Syrisk Ortodoxa Kyrkan. It might as well have been called Assyrisk Ortodoxa Kyrkan. It's even more clear, that they are Assyrians, than the Chaldean Catholics. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:19 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - the views expressed in the article belong only to a portion of Syriacs, and have become quite controversial. The Assyrian people article should mention that some Syriacs choose this identity while other reject it. There is no point keeping this as a redirect as no one will search for this term exactly and it is difficult to know to which article it should point. — Gareth Hughes 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Afd is not a {{cleanup}} tag. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. It's a stub right now and it's part of WikiProject Assyria. It will expand, and cover the false "Aramaean" identity, as well as statistics and everything. Also, you have to understand, though you may not like it, there are many Syriac Orthodox members in Sweden, who consider themselves Assyrians. I'm not making this up. Who do you think founded the soccer team Assyriska? It sure wasn't Chaldeans or Nestorians. If you have any issues with the article, try to expand it with credible sources, don't delete it right away. I have cited my sources, confirming my point. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:55 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Also worth mentioning, is that many Syriac Assyrians in Sweden, and also to some extent, in Germany, are split into two political divisions, of which one dislikes its Assyrian ancestry, and consider themselves to be Aramaeans, or Neo-Aramaean. — You are welcome to expand on that. By the way, in Sweden, we are called Assyrier/Syrianer. Technically, the title of this page, is not incorrect, with that in mind. And why do you think Esna.se has the Aramaean flag merged with the Assyrian flag? Wikipedia shouldn't delete articles because of political correctness. This article is meant to conform to ethnic Assyrian groups, just like there are article of ethnic Jewish groups (e.g. Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, etcetera). — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:58 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- merge to Syriac Orthodox Church. "Syriac Assyrians" is not a current term. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply This article is not about the Syriac Orthodox Church. It's about an ethnic group of members from the Syriac Orthodox Church (and Syriac Catholic Church), that identify themselves as Assyrians. It's meant to expand, include statistics, parts of their history, etcetera. The current term being used for the title is not even an issue, unless of course, you want to make it an issue. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:01 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Further comment — Only a minority of Syriacs call themselves Assyrian. The identity is incredibly divisive. This article is designed to give the point of view of those who choose to call themselves Assyrian. Elias has previously called those who stand against the Assyrian identity 'traitors' and 'liers'. The article is designed to promote one faction over another. We have articles on the Assyrian people and Syriac Christianity that can deal with these issues in a neutral way. The existence of this article is non-neutral: there is no room for clean up here. — Gareth Hughes 17:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If you feel that this article isn't neutral, how about helping out, and editing it to NPOV, instead of complaining and engaging in personal attacks on my character? You are obviously trying to sully my credibility as an editor here, and on that basis, you want this article deleted. Sorry, but if you have issues with me, that's not a reason to delete articles. POV issues (if this can be called POV), is not a reason to delete articles, and you of all people, should know that, since you're an administrator. The Syriacs who don't identify as Assyrians, call us traitors and liars too. Difference is, they never called themselves Aramaeans until recently. Also, can you prove that it's a minority of Syriacs who identify as Assyrians? Are you trying to be some kind of protector to these revisionists? You haven't made one single edit on this article, why should your voice even count, if you are not trying to edit it, into a more "NPOV" version? Do you seriously believe that those Syriacs who say they are Aramaeans, are unbiased, and objective? Believe me, they are not the least, unbiased. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:57 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Personally Elias I don't think these new pages such as Chaldean Assyrians, etc are helping much. These articles are way to POV and should be merged with other articles that have neutral titles. Chaldean 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - What neutral titles? So it's better called "Chaldean community"? It's not a community any longer. Many Chaldean Catholics are fleeing Iraq, over half the Assyrian Democratic Movement's members are Chaldean Catholics. You want "neutral titles" because of political correctness. Me personally, I believe that an indigenous ethnic group is the same indigenous ethnic group, no matter what it calls itself. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:03 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Personally Elias I don't think these new pages such as Chaldean Assyrians, etc are helping much. These articles are way to POV and should be merged with other articles that have neutral titles. Chaldean 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If you feel that this article isn't neutral, how about helping out, and editing it to NPOV, instead of complaining and engaging in personal attacks on my character? You are obviously trying to sully my credibility as an editor here, and on that basis, you want this article deleted. Sorry, but if you have issues with me, that's not a reason to delete articles. POV issues (if this can be called POV), is not a reason to delete articles, and you of all people, should know that, since you're an administrator. The Syriacs who don't identify as Assyrians, call us traitors and liars too. Difference is, they never called themselves Aramaeans until recently. Also, can you prove that it's a minority of Syriacs who identify as Assyrians? Are you trying to be some kind of protector to these revisionists? You haven't made one single edit on this article, why should your voice even count, if you are not trying to edit it, into a more "NPOV" version? Do you seriously believe that those Syriacs who say they are Aramaeans, are unbiased, and objective? Believe me, they are not the least, unbiased. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:57 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Further comment — Only a minority of Syriacs call themselves Assyrian. The identity is incredibly divisive. This article is designed to give the point of view of those who choose to call themselves Assyrian. Elias has previously called those who stand against the Assyrian identity 'traitors' and 'liers'. The article is designed to promote one faction over another. We have articles on the Assyrian people and Syriac Christianity that can deal with these issues in a neutral way. The existence of this article is non-neutral: there is no room for clean up here. — Gareth Hughes 17:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply This article is not about the Syriac Orthodox Church. It's about an ethnic group of members from the Syriac Orthodox Church (and Syriac Catholic Church), that identify themselves as Assyrians. It's meant to expand, include statistics, parts of their history, etcetera. The current term being used for the title is not even an issue, unless of course, you want to make it an issue. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:01 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't have a problem if this article was merged with Assyrian culture, where the title of the paragraph is "Chaldean Community". Its the title (Chaldena Assyrian, Syriac Assyrian) that are just not right. Chaldean 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a culture topic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:28 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Some of it does belong in the culture page and some of it can go in the History of the Assyrian people page. Chaldean 21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a culture topic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:28 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem if this article was merged with Assyrian culture, where the title of the paragraph is "Chaldean Community". Its the title (Chaldena Assyrian, Syriac Assyrian) that are just not right. Chaldean 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- the problem with these Assyrian topics is not that they are invalid, but that they are WP:OWNed by resilient Assyrian nationalists. Somebody needs to do the thankless task of cleaning them up vigorously and cut all the crap, so that if finally becomes clear at least what these people keep bickering about. This doesn't belong here, Afd isn't part of the dispute resolution process. It is evident that as long as these article remain in the hands of such "patriots", the situation will never improve. The true problem is that nobody else cares enough to adopt the topic. dab (𒁳) 08:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Dbachmann, you are welcome to clean these articles up, whenever you like. It's just that, when you have enough knowledge of this topic, you'll realise, that what I've written is not the least POV, but actually NPOV. It's just that I'm not being politically correct, and I don't care if I'm offending Aramaeanist wannabe nationalists; the truth must prevail on Wikipedia; revisionism is not for Wikipedia. Their own Church, is named Syrian Orthodox Church. Where do you think Syrian comes from? The Assyrian Church of the East, has also been called Syrian Church; all these Churches have a common history from the same people. You have to understand, dab, they never called themselves Aramaeans, until recently. It's a new Aramaeanism movement, and far from all Syriacs, say they are Aramaeans It's mainly in northern Europe, where some Syriacs have been indoctrinated to believe this bullshit. But you're right, this isn't AFD material. Deleting this is basically censorship. Garzo and Benne don't like the content, so they immediately want it deleted. I'm sticking to historical facts, Garzo, and Benne, don't want to be honest about this; they just want to delete whatever they disagree with. What's that, if not censorship? So anyway, are you going to vote keep or what? — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:40 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- the problem with these Assyrian topics is not that they are invalid, but that they are WP:OWNed by resilient Assyrian nationalists. Somebody needs to do the thankless task of cleaning them up vigorously and cut all the crap, so that if finally becomes clear at least what these people keep bickering about. This doesn't belong here, Afd isn't part of the dispute resolution process. It is evident that as long as these article remain in the hands of such "patriots", the situation will never improve. The true problem is that nobody else cares enough to adopt the topic. dab (𒁳) 08:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Elias is selling a bunch of Assyrianist propagandist nonsense. There are plenty of references to the Aramaean heritage of the people who have for centuries been called Syrians, whereas the name Assyrian is only a quite recent invention. Flavius Josephus, for instance, in his Jewish Antiquities, states that "Aram had the Aramites, which the Greeks called Syrians" (book I, chapter 6, paragraph 4). The German Semitic scholar Theodor Nöldeke, in his Kurzgefasste Syrische Grammatik (Leipzig, 1880), p. XXIX states that: "Mit dem Namen 'Syrer' bezeichneten die Griechen, seit sie Asien näher hatten kennen lernen, die Nation, welche sich selbst 'Aramäer' nannte." Also Syriac church fathers as Ephrem the Syrian, Jacob of Serugh, and Bar-Hebraeus made reference to the Aramean heritage of the Syriacs. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- while I wouldn't call Flavius Josephus a "quite recent" source, you are right that the name change from Aramaean to (As)Syrian is due to Greek influence, and thus associated with Christianization ("Syriac Christianity"). The Assyrian ethnicity really harks back to the 1st century and the establishment of the Syriac church, but it is still true that it has its roots in the "Aramaisation" of the late Assyrian Empire in the 8th to 6th centuries BC. I am not opposed to linking the Assyrians to events in the Neo-Assyrian period, but referring to Sargon of Akkad as a founding figure is really too silly to stand. The various inner-Assyrian feuds Elias is constantly referring to are a modern (post 16th century AD) thing and should not affect our coverage of earlier history. Our Assyrian editors are quite obviously incapable of giving a satisfactory treatment of these modern strifes, and we'll need some neutral editor biting the bullet and covering this. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Greeks called the Assyrians, Syrians. The Assyrians just happened to speak Aramaic at the time. It doesn't mean you are some ancient Aramaean people. The Assyrians had conquered most of the Levant and settled there, speaking Aramaic. They didn't call Aramaeans, Syrians. They called Assyrians, Syrians. If they were Aramaeans, they would have called them Aramaeans. It's not "Assyrianist" propaganda. This is Aramaeanist propaganda, or revisionism. Anyway, there are Syriacs today who call themselves Assyrians. Based on that, this article is notable. You may not agree with them, but that's the case. I hope you don't believe you're some kind of racially pure Aramaean, do you? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:02 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- By the way Benne, watch this Who do you think is most accurate? Herodotus, or Flavius Josephus? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:08 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- The Greeks called the Assyrians, Syrians. The Assyrians just happened to speak Aramaic at the time. It doesn't mean you are some ancient Aramaean people. The Assyrians had conquered most of the Levant and settled there, speaking Aramaic. They didn't call Aramaeans, Syrians. They called Assyrians, Syrians. If they were Aramaeans, they would have called them Aramaeans. It's not "Assyrianist" propaganda. This is Aramaeanist propaganda, or revisionism. Anyway, there are Syriacs today who call themselves Assyrians. Based on that, this article is notable. You may not agree with them, but that's the case. I hope you don't believe you're some kind of racially pure Aramaean, do you? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:02 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- while I wouldn't call Flavius Josephus a "quite recent" source, you are right that the name change from Aramaean to (As)Syrian is due to Greek influence, and thus associated with Christianization ("Syriac Christianity"). The Assyrian ethnicity really harks back to the 1st century and the establishment of the Syriac church, but it is still true that it has its roots in the "Aramaisation" of the late Assyrian Empire in the 8th to 6th centuries BC. I am not opposed to linking the Assyrians to events in the Neo-Assyrian period, but referring to Sargon of Akkad as a founding figure is really too silly to stand. The various inner-Assyrian feuds Elias is constantly referring to are a modern (post 16th century AD) thing and should not affect our coverage of earlier history. Our Assyrian editors are quite obviously incapable of giving a satisfactory treatment of these modern strifes, and we'll need some neutral editor biting the bullet and covering this. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Exactly, Arameans eventually just became part of the Assyrian nation. If the Arameans ruled the Assyrians, then I can see it being the other way around and today calling ourselfs Aramean. But since the opposite occurred, the Assyrian nation survived wit the Aramaic language. Chaldean 00:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is why the language today is called Syriac, or Syrian, not Aramaean. If the Aramaeans had ruled the Middle East and Mesopotamia, of course, naturally, things would've been different. Suryoyo doesn't sound like Aramaean to me. It sounds more like Ashuraya. This is so logical. I can't believe some Syriacs are deliberately ignoring this. Why would the ancient Aramaeans call their language a derivative of Assyrian, if they weren't Assyrians? — EliasAlucard|Talk 06:39 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly, Arameans eventually just became part of the Assyrian nation. If the Arameans ruled the Assyrians, then I can see it being the other way around and today calling ourselfs Aramean. But since the opposite occurred, the Assyrian nation survived wit the Aramaic language. Chaldean 00:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
