Template talk:Infobox Assyrians
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, or visit the project page. |
| Template | This article has been rated as template-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
I have updated the Infobox based on my posting in Assyrian people. 75.48.34.109 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Controversial
"Controversially also Aramaye?" That's interesting. "Assyrians" is at least as controversial. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- It was User:Dbachmann who added that. And no, there's no way that "Assyrian" is as controversial as "Aramaean". Stop trying to inflate the Aramaye designation. You know it's only used by a fringe minority in the Syriac Orthodox Church. Aturaye is way more accepted. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Assyrian is used worldwide in print media. Unlke Aramaya. Chaldean (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's only in the Aramaeanist mind where "Assyrian" is controversial, and of course, if you happen to be Turkish/Kurdish and don't want to recognise the Assyrian genocide. "Aramaye" however, isn't even universally accepted in the Syriac Orthodox Church. It's only around 200 000 Syriacs at most (and that's a generous estimation) who accept "Aramaye", and they don't even use it regularly, since they prefer "Syriac". Also, they exist pretty much only in northern Europe, whence they are spreading their nonsense propaganda. "Assyrian," on the other hand, is accepted by the entire Church of the East, by around half of the members of the Syriac Orthodox Church, and many other Syriacs. To say that Assyrian is just as controversial as Aramaean, is pure and utter nonsense. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, Benne. I must say I'm quite impressed on your behalf. It's great to see, that you, finally, after over two years of endless and incessant discussions, have acknowledged the fact that "Aramaye", is indeed, controversial. As stated, I'm impressed. I think this is progress from your side; I expected you to continue on for another ten years or so, claiming that we Assyrians are Aramaeans. It would be great to see you, follow through with your logic, now that you've finally admitted that Aramaye is controversial, and cease this Oromoye nonsense on Wikipedia. Most of us are quite sick of discussing this boring topic. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's only in the Aramaeanist mind where "Assyrian" is controversial, and of course, if you happen to be Turkish/Kurdish and don't want to recognise the Assyrian genocide. "Aramaye" however, isn't even universally accepted in the Syriac Orthodox Church. It's only around 200 000 Syriacs at most (and that's a generous estimation) who accept "Aramaye", and they don't even use it regularly, since they prefer "Syriac". Also, they exist pretty much only in northern Europe, whence they are spreading their nonsense propaganda. "Assyrian," on the other hand, is accepted by the entire Church of the East, by around half of the members of the Syriac Orthodox Church, and many other Syriacs. To say that Assyrian is just as controversial as Aramaean, is pure and utter nonsense. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Assyrian is used worldwide in print media. Unlke Aramaya. Chaldean (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
