Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Wikipedia talk:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board

so far, the possibilities are listed without recommending one over the other. This page needs to collect information from style guides of notable publications (newspapers, journals, encyclopedia etc.) to establish what are the prevalent choices in English language sources. Whatever else you do, when you alter statements in the page or add new material, cite your sources. dab (𒁳) 14:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] References to off-wiki usage

Chaldean, we are not interested in German, Russian, Ukrainian or any other non-English terminology. The point of this page is to establish naming conventions in the English language, this being the English Wikipedia. Please stop discussing the Russian census here, thanks. dab (𒁳) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I didn't see that. But it is important to state where other nations stand in this contreversy. Perhaps a section separate from the english section that talks about that. That would be important, since people need to realize that Aramean/Aramaya is not used nowhere in the middle east notibly, but is used in Northern Europe, such as Sweden, Germany, Holland. Chaldean (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "background" section

this is intended for Wikipedians coming here wondering "what the hell". This is the normal reaction of non-Syriacs upon first coming across this "dispute": it doesn't make sense to outsiders. The section gives the bare outline of the historical context of the present dispute. Now, the fact that the Syriac community is losing such unifying factors as language and religiosity is crucial to their increasing reliance on "antiquity frenzy" in defining their identity. The claim that only a minority of Syriacs today are native speakers of Aramaic is based on SIL:

  • aii: Population total all countries: 210,231. Ethnic population: 4,250,000 (1994). [1]

Adding cld and tru, we still arive at safely below 0.6 million out of more than 4 million. That's a "clear minority". Regarding the decline of religiosity in favour of national mysticism, we state "There are Assyrians that are not very religious yet they may be very nationalistic" in article space. This is dubious, being unsourced, but it stands to reason: EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) is a perfect example of a diaspora Assyrian of the second or third generation, losing contact with the language and religion, and making up for the resulting feelings of estrangement with nationalist fantasy. This is a common process in all diasporas, all over the world, and in no way specific to Syriacs. This common process nevertheless goes to explain a lot of edit wars we see on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 07:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] standard name

Ok. We need to find a compromise and settle on a recommended standard. If we just keep calling the entire group "Assyrians", we'll see no end of unconstructive prancing around over "Syriac-Aramaeans" not being "Assyrians". Since "Syriac" is a term embraced by everyone, I strongly recommend we take the lead of US and Australian census, settling for a "slash" solution. We should call the group Assyrian/Syriac by default. "Assyrian" is clearly widespread, but there will be an (uncontroversial) "Syriac" for those who cannot identify with the "As-" (rolleyes). This would mean we move Assyrian people to Assyrian/Syriac people, and merge Category:Assyrian people and Category:Syriacs into Category:Assyrian/Syriac people. Yes, I know, some people are going to bicker no matter what we do, but after careful consideration of all positions involved, I honestly think this is the best we can do within WP:NPOV plus WP:UCN. dab (𒁳) 08:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the bickering will go on, and with a reason. First of all, there are those Chaldaeans who see their identity not just as religious, but as ethnic as well, and second there are those Aramaeans who believe their name - which has been used more or less throughout the history of the Syriac people - should be included in a common denominator. And I'm afraid fanatic Assyrianists will never settle for anything other than Assyrian.
As I've stated before, I believe there should be a common article describing the various subgroups, the naming dispute, etc. (which is now called Names of Syriac Christians, and separate articles for the modern Aramaean and modern Assyrian ethnic groups, or even better: sections about these modern groups within the articles Aramaeans and Assyrians, since that is what they believe they are. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
we can naturally report on all these positions, provided they are reasonably referenced. But we should not spin off a separate article for every term, this would lead to madness, not to mention violate WP:CFORK. Assyrians and Chaldeans are disambiguation pages. Aramaeans is about the ancient people, and there is no corresponding disambiguation since it hasn't been shown that "Aramaean" sees any use as a term for the modern group (but we do keep a disambiguation note at Syriac-Aramaean people). Obviously we won't merge Chaldea and Chaldean Christians just because the latter name themselves after the former. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
As I stated in the Western Syriacs talk page, I dont have a problem with Benne's proposal. It just shouldn't disturb Assyrian people page. Syriac Christianity was sapose to be that page where it talks about all the groups as one, but nobody has worked on that article yet. Chaldean (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
um, no, Syriac Christianity is about the religion (the set of denominations). Assyrian people is about the ethnic group traditionally adhering to this religion. "Assyrians" refers to the entire group. There are sub-groups, but their existence and definition needs to be established clearly, based on reliable sources, in the main article before there can be talk of separate sub-articles. dab (𒁳) 10:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
But dab, that is what all these groups are united under; one very close religion of Syriac Christianity. The page can be moved to Syriac Christians. And that is the arguement generally used when talked about the simiarities of these groups; religion which is bonded to the language all these groups use; Sureth. Chaldean (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
What about just Syriac peoples? By putting it in the plural form, we are acknowledging multiple identities, and the cultural subdivisions. Plus, it would be unambiguous which would be the "parent" ethnic topic.--Pharos (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no objections of "Syriac peoples" alongside "Syriacs", but I do realize the implication that there are several peoples will be controversial. Either way, we need to keep an eye on de facto usage. "Syriac peoples" apparently sees very little usage (some 30 google books hits, compared to 400 for "Syriacs"). I suppose this can just be another redirect. "Syriac Christians" is also fine, but of course this implies that you cannot be an atheist and yet be a member of this ethnic group, which is a little problematic. Our two main candidates remain "Assyrians" (de facto most widespread in English usage, but controversial) and "Syriacs" (less common, but also less problematic), and the combined "Assyrians/Syriacs" to really drive home the point that we simply mean to refer to the whole group without taking a position in the naming dispute. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Convention"

This was started less than a week ago. It is by no means a convention and shouldn't be tagged as such. If and when it goes through the proper channels and is accepted by the community in general, the {{proposed}} tag can be changed. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

the proper channels being what? This is a wiki, remember? These conventions aren't fixed, and we do not actively recommend some usage over another, yet. it will evolve. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think what he means that all involved have to agree on the final draft. I for one certianly have some problems with what you have written. Chaldean (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Yes, this is a wiki, but you can't just start a page and then claim what you've created is a "guideline"[2] and then try to use it to win arguments elsewhere[3]. You've been around plenty long enough to know that. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
so... have you actually looked at it? The guideline makes no controversial claims at present. It merely lays out the possibilities. Incomplete? yes. Controversial? No. At present, this is little more than a help to editors who wonder why these whacky Syriacs are so angry with each other, and what the scope of the problem is. The more reliable sources we accumulate here, the more prescriptive we will be able to become. dab (𒁳) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Angry at each other? Your the one who has started this fire. There was no fights or bickering until you started putting out your own guidelines and moving and renaming pages. Of course people will get angry when you do these things. Uncontroversial? You start the guidelines, specifically with the history of these people began when Christianity began, when clearly all agree that these people are more ancient and have a longer history then that. Chaldean (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Dab, I didn't say the guideline was controversial. I said it's not a guideline at all. From WP:NAME:

New naming conventions should be proposed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, and explained at Requests for comment, the Village Pump, and any related pages. Once a strong consensus has formed, the proposal can be adopted and listed below. New naming conventions for specific categories of articles often arise from WikiProjects.

You didn't propose it, you didn't seek consensus with an RfC or the village pump, and you didn't mention it at any of the related WikiProjects. You wrote it and immediately tried to institute it as required reading, and that's not how it works. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generational divisions (or in-group political parties)

Similar disputes surfaced on Swedish wikipedia, and I also looked into this strange fight. I read a study ordered by the Swedish immigration authority in the 1980's, authored by Bengt Knutsson. In his analysis, this was not a conflict between East and West, but mostly an internal conflict in the Western, Jacobite group (there were very few Nestorians in Sweden before the Iraq wars). According to Knutsson, the conflict was mostly political.

Under Ottoman rule, the Christian communities had been partly self-governing, with priests and bishops as their representatives. The clergy lost this role about a century ago, but they still see themselves as leaders of their community, trying to hold expatriate groups together around the church. In political terms, one might label this fraction as conservatives.

At the end of the Ottoman rule, there was also a secular movement for independence amongst Christian minorities. They did nor automatically regard the clergy as their political leaders. This group chose to assume an Assyrian identity, but actually, this is more about politics than about ethnicity.

So now their are disputes within families, often the older generation subscribing to "Syrian" organizations and younger people to the Assyrian identity. This makes the conflict confusing. It would have been clearer if these parties had called themselves "conservative" and "liberal", or "christian-democrats" and "nationalists", or something like that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not as simple as Knutsson would like to put it. Please refer to the article Religieuze en etnische identiteit van Syrisch-Orthodoxen uit Turkije en Syrië in Nederland by Heleen L. Murre-van den Berg from Leiden University. The issue is more complicated that a simple conservative/progressive dichotomy, but more research is definitely needed. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Knutsson is not that one-dimensional. I just emphasized one aspect of what I read in Knutsson's study, because this aspect is rarely mentioned by proponents of these groups in their debates on the internet. Fact is that members of the same family claim to have different ethnic identities, and that some people switch ethnic identity in the way one can change one's political adherence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is partly right, I believe the reason that some people calls themselfs Assyrians is mainly cause they want a country, and they think the chances are bigger if they're calling themselfs Assyrians. While the other group is more realistic, and instead of wasting power on such things they work for the important things. For example keeping our language alive. The TriZ (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the reason that some people calls themselfs Assyrians is mainly cause they want a country, and they think the chances are bigger if they're calling themselfs Assyrians. - I don't know know how calling yourself something different will help you in getting your own country. I tend to believe those within Syriac Orthodox whom consider themselves Assyrian made there decision based on what there father and grandfather have been calling themselves or maybe they just had an Assyrian revival in that they realise Soraya (Syrian) is derivided from Assyrian and want unity among the rest of Aramaic speakers, rather then saperation. Chaldean (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thats it! They changed names to Assyrian cause there are a theory that Syrian is deriveded from Assyrian! If course it's not like that, and no, no Western Syriacs used to call themselfs Assyrians or Othoroye. It's all political. Chaldean, you've seen EliasAlucard, did you know about his views about creating a new Assyrian state? Well, there are alot of people like that in Europe, people who believes they can get a state and by that seperating from the church and claiming an old ancient peoples name. There are alot of organizations who supports for example the Kurds in the war against the Turks, believing in a naive way that the Kurds will give them a part of the land... and they say you learn from history, 1914-1915. The TriZ (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

no Western Syriacs used to call themselfs Assyrians or Othoroye. - how do you explain Naum Faik and the likes of him? Chaldean (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What about him? I'm speaking in general terms. His poems, are they translated? The TriZ (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You said no Western Syriac used to call themselves Assyrian, and a showed you a historic Western Syriac that did. And there were many like him (and still are of course.) Chaldean (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You still didn't answer my question, hes poems, are they translated? The TriZ (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your question was irrelevant to what we were discussing. Chaldean (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not, i'm questioning if Naum Faik even called himself Assyrian. Obviously those poems are translated, and the interesting part is if course, from which language and what did they say in that language? The TriZ (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So now your questioning if Naum Faik really considered himself Assyrian? Are you even aware of the basic fact of currently there are Syriac Orthodox in Syria and Turkey that identify themselves as Assyrian? Do you know Yusuf Akbulut? Do you know Naum Faik wasn't alone? What about another Syriac Orthodox, David B. Perley, have you ever heard of him? Ashur Yousif? Certianly you remember Mor Julius Yeshu Cicek? I can go on and on and show you countless Syriac Orthodox that called there nation Assyria. Chaldean (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, go on. But don't dishonour the name of Mor Julius Yeshu Cicek, you don't even know who he was and your trying to play smart. This great man has sacrified his life for our church and our people. Do not include him in your Assyrian propaganda. I've personally met him when he was in Sweden, he absolutely was not Assyrian. And for the name of example Akbulut, again, translated. And again, what's your point? I've already said why people changed names to Assyrian. The TriZ (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How sad. You must not be aware that Mor Cicek was an Assyrian advocate for most part of his life, but turned against it only in his later years (similar to many Syriac Orthodox when they move the Europe.) If you don't believe me, you can read his book Mardutho d Suryoye. Chaldean (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL. The patriarch is Assyrian cause hes name was Senaharib (mine is Turkish, so i'm Turkish to if course then), and now your saying Mor Cicek was Assyrian to. Your hysterical, hilarious! Keep up the good job spreading your Assyrian propaganda! The TriZ (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See now your losing all credintials. Commens like Assyrian propaganda instead of tackling the actual issue just makes you look bad. I'm trying to help you. Chaldean (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You have lost yours longtime ago. The TriZ (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] European Syriac Union example?

It strikes me that a group like the European Syriac Union would have a consciously neutral name. But, I'm not really familiar with this group. Is it representative of the major tendencies of European Assyrians/Syriacs/Arameans/Chaldeans? If so, it could set a good example.--Pharos (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How many articles do we need?

It strikes me we should be really clear on just which articles we need, and what their scopes are. Here's my suggestion:

  1. 1 article on the ethnicity as a whole ("Syriacs" or whatever we decide on)
  2. 2 articles on regional cultures (East vs. West)
  3. 3 articles on national ideologies (Assyrianism, Arameanism, Chaldeanism)
  4. 3 articles on churches
  5. 1 article on naming controversy

I hope this can clarify the discussion a bit.--Pharos (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

this may be more of a topic for the "cooperation board", perhaps we should move the section there.
I mostly agree with your count, as follows:
  1. Syriacs: definitely.
  2. at present, we do not really have the sources needed to establish "regional cultures" sub-articles. These articles should in any case be summary style sub-articles of the main article under (1.), to be created as necessary and backed up by sources. We do have West Syrian Rite and East Syrian Rite, and I feel these may be the articles intended under this item. Chaldean Catholics is a sub-article of Syriacs based on denomination, not geography, but at the same time arguably a sub-article of East Syrian Rite (viz., on adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church).
I agree that we're not currently using sources that discuss the East vs. West cultural distinction clearly. Still, I believe such sources on these distinctions exist, and moreover, that having such non-political articles would clarify that the Assyrianist/Arameanist identities are not merely regional identities, as commonly misinterpreted. The articles on the religious rites are related, but they should not be a replacement for cultural articles. Compare an article on the "Nusach Ashkenaz", which would be quite different from an article on Ashkenazi Jews.--Pharos (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
that having such non-political articles would clarify that the Assyrianist/Arameanist identities are not merely regional identities, as commonly misinterpreted - actually the issue is very regional (for the most part) as well. The only ones whom identify themselves as Aramean are Syriac Orthodox originally from Tur Abdin and in and around the area, which lies around various ancient Aramean kingdoms. Where as Chaldean Catholics, ACOEs, and Syriac Orthodox from northern Iraq and western Iran whom are advocates of the Assyrian identity are located in where the ancient Assyria was located. Chaldean (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's regional, and then it isn't. It's not NPOV or accurate to say "Arameans live in the west, and Assyrians live in the east". The accurate statement would be "People in the west are more likely to subscribe to the Aramean identity, and people in the east are more likely to subscribe to the Assyrian identity." Because these identities cross borders, and someone can choose to say to people in a neighboring country (or even to a family member): "No, you're not an Aramean, you're an Assyrian" (or vice versa). Which is why having articles directly on "Arameans" etc. doesn't make much sense.--Pharos (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. depends on WP:RS presented. Assyrianism appears warranted, the other will depend on the citation of WP:RS.
  2. definitely, Syriac Christianity and one article per church (more than three). This is mostly unproblematic, and I note that denominational articles appear to be hardly ever trolled by nationalists for some reason.
  3. Names of Syriac Christians: definitely. The "ideology" articles under (3.) above will need to be established as summary style sub-articles in the same way the articles under (2.) need to be subject to (1.) above.
dab (𒁳) 12:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Syriacs: definitely. - Without trying to insult me, could you please tell me on what do you base your choice on? That is the most commonly used in the English language? It certianly not, since Assyrians Christians more then doubles [[4]] Syriac Christians [[5]] in general google search, its not even close within book search [[6]] and [[7]]], or within scholar search [[8]] [[9]]. Also, can you please not ignore the fact that Assyrian is universally used by all different Church groups, where as Syriac, in terms of the English Syriac is used by one church, and it isn't even used unamiously within that church? Another thing that I have noticed you have gotten wrong dab [[10]] is that you said when Syriac Orthodox people declaire themselves as Syriac (or Aramean) only, you think they are refering to the whole group of Aramaic speaking people as such, but that is not the case. In fact, user Triz and Vegard whom are Syriac Orthodox will tell you that there religious leaders whom advocate this identity do not see Nestorian and Chaldean Catholics as the same kinds of people as them. Chaldean (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
3 articles on national ideologies - we have created Chaldean Christians and the article basically talks about how the Chaldean national identity came about. So I dont think it would be a good idea to create yet another article on Chaldeans. In terms of Aramean nationalism, then that would be the perfect page for that specific issue, since Aramean is not used in the English language as frequantly, but there should a page that talks about the non-English phenomenom. Chaldean (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
you are once again missing what this is even about. I did not state a preference on article title. The article can be at "Syriacs", at "Assyran people", at "Assyrian/Syriacs", this is not what we are discussing at the moment. The point is that, under whichever title (1.) is the article on the group as a whole. dab (𒁳) 07:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1 article on the ethnicity as a whole ("Syriacs" or whatever we decide on)
2 articles on regional cultures (East vs. West)
3 articles on national ideologies (Assyrianism, Arameanism, Chaldeanism)
3 articles on churches
1 article on naming controversy.

1 article on the ethnicity. Either the title name is Syriacs, or else we have two articles, Syriac people and Assyrian people. Otherwise i agree with Pharos proposal. VegardNorman (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the title, I think the most important thing is that we have one parent article on the ethnicity as a whole, so that the issue isn't confused too much.--Pharos (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
since Assyrian people is about the entire group (numbering some 3 to 4.5 million altogether), I tend to agree with VegardNorman that a move to Syriacs would be advisable to avoid this perpetual confusion. This is open to bona fide debate: it is true, nevertheless, that "Assyrians" is also a name commonly used for the whole group. Commonly used, but open to misunderstandings, that is. Since I am tired of discussing in circles because the same misunderstanding keeps cropping up every other day, I strongly advise move to an unambiguous title, either Syriacs, or, if that is unacceptable to the Assyrianists, Assyrians/Syriacs. dab (𒁳) 07:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have stated why Syriac would be the wrong title or even slash title on the talk page of Assyrian people. Dab believes Syriac is a more unambiguous title, but actually its the opposite and I have shown that in the talk page. Chaldean (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
At least it appears that we have one article now. The title issue would I guess be a balance between WP:COMMONNAMES (which would favor "Assyrians", because it's more common) and WP:COMMONNAMES#Do not overdo it (which would favor "Syriacs", because it seems to be more broadly acceptable to the different groups).--Pharos (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"Do not overdo it", sums it all up, I think: Syriacs, being a modern and neutral alternative for the now ambiguous "Syrians", is the only option. "Assyrians" might be more common, it is however highly controversial, POV, and ambiguous (Assyrian Church of the East members? East Syriacs? all Syriacs?), and hence not an option.
For all I care, Assyrians can stay as an article about the modern (sub)group. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
which would favor "Syriacs", because it seems to be more broadly acceptable to the different groups - No it is not. Where did you get impression? Syriac is almost conclusively used by Syriac Orthodox members. I don't have a problem creating an article similar to that of Chaldean Christians, about Syriac Orthodox people whom do not see themselves as Assyrian. It can use a religious template to thatof Chaldean Christians. That is why I didn't have a problem with creating the Syriac-Aramean people page. That way, everyone is covered and there is no identity being forced on any group. Chaldean (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I got that impression from looking at a group like European Syriac Union, which seems to include representatives of different political orientations. But maybe I'm wrong on that. To me, the title is secondary anyway, and "Assyrians" isn't a bad title.
What does trouble me is "compromise" that makes a cozy segregated space for every political group, while obscuring the non-political facts that are of interest to most people (like language and culture). So every group in this compromise can say "Our article is good [i.e. fits our POV], who cares about the others?" Even if mutually-agreed on, having such POV forks is always a bad thing, because it privileges politics over the real world.--Pharos (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I got that impression from looking at a group like European Syriac Union - Pharos, it is way more complicated then that. In Europe, there are more Syriac Orthodox then Chaldeans and ACOEs. Thus, majority rules in that region and all other smaller groups have to agree with whatever comprimise they are given. That doesn't mean the ACOE and Chaldean organization have agreed on there identity being Syriac. Now, in the US, Chaldeans and ACOEs far outnumber Syriac Orthodox (actually the Syriac Orthodox in US are very pro-Assyrian and even broke off with the offical Church and have remaned it to Assyrian Orthodox Church.) Because of this, most Assyrian organization have only Assyrian as the name of there organization (sometimes, Chaldean with it too.) Example; Assyrian foundation of America, Assyrian Aid Society of America. And for the record, the only Assyrian political party that got voted in the Iraqi parliement in the last election was the Assyrian Democratic Movement (despite Chaldean Catholics making up 80% of all Assyrians.) So Assyrian isn't as controversial as Benne is trying to make it out to be (of course it is contriversial in Northern Europe, but that should not shape up the big picture, which is the rest of the world, and specifically in the Middle East.) So the notion that Benne is suggesting of Assyrian being only used by ACOE members is false. Chaldean (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So is enwp about all the world, or just englishspeaking countrys? It is SO wrong to redirect all the articles to Assyrian People. Basically it's like this, alot of people, millions probably, do not identify as Assyrians. And now your redirecting them to Assyrians? And that's not POV? Then wtf is? Amazing... The TriZ (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do all the redirect. I have repeadly suggested on creating a Syriac-Aramean (Aramean nationalism) page for the sole perpose of Syriac Orthodox that do not consider themselves Assyrian (sort of like Chaldean Christians. Chaldean (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chaldean Christians

I am not sure having the article directly be on "Chaldean Christians" is the best approach. I think it might be better if some of that article were moved to Chaldean Catholic Church and/or History of the Chaldean Catholic Church, and the rest adjusted to focus on the concept of Chaldean identity.--Pharos (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason creating the Names of Syriac Christians page was to do just that. Focusing on the concept of the Chaldean identity, along with Assyrian, and Aramean-Syriac. I don't know how creating yet another article would help the situation. Chaldean (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean Christians and Chaldean Catholic Church has a lot of overlap. This is like Christians vs. Christianity, Muslims vs. Islam or Hindus vs. Hinduism: I don't quite see the point of these "adherents" articles, but there are precedents. This is the least of our problems here, at least, I hope, it should be clear what the article is about. It can be merged or stay separate according to pragmatic editing judgment. Chaldean identity and Aramaean identity can indeed just stay section redirects until enough material is presented to warrant full articles. dab (𒁳) 07:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the "adherents" articles myself; they're usually just a combination of dicdef and "role of the individual in the faith". The Chaldean Christians article actually has some good content, though. A lot of it could go to articles like Chaldean Catholic Church, History of the Chaldean Catholic Church, Culture of the Chaldean Catholic Church, and Chaldean identity.--Pharos (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Culture of the Chaldean Catholic Church? We have a page already for that - Assyrian culture. Chaldean (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking of an analogy with Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And virtually noone considers Mormons an ethnic group.--Pharos (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assyrian usage

This is once again ridiculous. Please wiki moderators. Step in with this. This is the most nonsense I have seen. The name used should be Assyrian for a myriad of reasons stated 200 times for people who continue to make an issue of such things. It is simple. The only name used by members of all the various church groups in question is Assyrian. There are no Syriacs in the church of the east or chaldean church; no chaldeans as part of the church of the east or syrian orthodox or catholic churches. The only appelation accepted by people from all church denominations including muslims like Mahallami and Yezidis who identify as such...is Assyrian. It also is an ethnic term used by many who do not adhere to a church affiliation and term themselves agnostic, atheist etc. There are no Chaldean Catholics (or a negligible amount) no "Syrian Orthodox/Aramean/Syriac" who is not a member of the Syrian Orthodox or Catholic church. This is an issue of identity and ethnicity not based solely on the 2 rubricks of relious affiliation and language.

Furthermore, please refer to Sargon and Ninos Donabed's Assyrians in Eastern Massachusetts Arcadia 2006 for more concrete evidence of the Assyrian heritage of the so-called Syriacs. It is factual evidence and presented in picture format for those who can not understand english.

Also remember the discussion for using Syriac (which is adjectival) in the form of a noun (for a people) is tantamount to calling people of an Arab background "Arabic". Some ethnic terms are nominal in form and have a separte adjectival form in the liguistic sense. I highly doubt (in English) you will find an Ethiopian who refers to him/herself as Ge'ez. This is silly and completely wrong. --Suryani kadim (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You just wasted 1847 bytes. The TriZ (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
observe WP:CITE. If you have good references, ideally major English language newspaper guidelines or similar, great. Unless you can cite anything of the sort, you are doing nothing except driving home the point that there is indeed a dispute (which we already knew). dab (𒁳) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Cite what? That Assyrian has been used by people of other Churches then ACOE? Chaldean (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't care -- for whatever point it is you want to make. dab (𒁳) 16:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again

So for the last time. Here are your references in English with pictures. Donabed&Donabed, Assyrians of Eastern Massachusetts, Images of America Series, Arcadia Publishing Charleston SC 2006 see page 53 for census accounts of people coming from Assyria and speaking Assyrian see page 80 for a picture of St Mary's Assyrian Church of Antioch in Worcester see page 38 for US citizenship record using Assyrian see page 72 and 73 for a full panoramic of Jacobite Assyrians welcoming Nestorian Assyrian matriarch Lady Surma Khanim see pages 78,79 and 84 for official documents of the church with the title "Assyrian" page 36-37 for a panoramic of Jacobites with a sign in a forth of July parade with a sign "Sons of Assyria" see page 17 for a song in "Syriac Script" entitled 'tarlaneh millet' from Turkey early 1900s where the line "Aturiler Qardeshler" is repeated in the refrian.

in fact see the entire book so you stop bickering and become a bit more objective with concrete facts instead of making up erroneous information

also see this website, http://schoolassociation.org/history.htm

must someone contiue to explain this? This old ethnocidal narrative of people's is getting tiresome

--Suryani kadim (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forward slashes in article names

To be avoided It is Wikipedia policy to avoid the implication of hierarchies in article titles. Since it is not necessary to use forward slashes, you should not. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Setting rules/guidelines

Ok I think this is long overdue. Instead of keep on explaining the issues on certian topics, we need to declare rules on some of them, so that we don't go in countless circles. I am going to propose a couple rules on two topics for now, and I want us to come to an agreement on them. So please vote agree on disagree with the proposes I'm making. If you disagree, then you must come up with a reasonable reason and a counter-proposal.

Sooreth/Suryoyo is the language spoken by the ACS people. In English, it is mostly known as Syriac rather then Assyrian (Syriac 51,000 [[11]] Assyrian 32,000 [[12]].) Some Syriac Orthodox are asking how Sooreth/Suryoyo can be called Assyrian lemitized; well in English, many institutions use English, including the American and Australian census. so Assyrian is an alternative name just how Seyfo is for the genocide. It is not used us much in English, but its still used. Ultimatly, Syriac should be used in most of the Wikipedia pages.

Rule 1 - Since Syriac is the most common used in English , Syriac language should be the title of that respective page.
Rule 2 - When refering to Syriac language in other pages;
A) Syriac should be used in neutral pages (ie pages that have nothing to do with Syriac Orthodox or Assyrians.)
Example of Rule 2.A: Allah, Beirut, List of linguists, Book of Joshua, Middle East, Byzantine art
B) When dealing with Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Church or people or its villages, Syriac should be used
Example of Rule 2.B: Syriac people, Syriac Orthodox Church, Tur Abdin, among others
C) When dealing with Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church or its members or its villages should use mostly Assyrian, but Syriac can be used in certian places.
Example of Rule 2.C: Assyrian people, Church of the East, Alqosh, Zelge fans, Telkaif, etc
D) When dealing with self-identified Assyrians but of Syriac Orthodox/Catholic faith, they should use either Assyrian alone with the mentioning of is religious sect later down the sentence.
Example of Rule 2.D: Kennedy Bakircioglü, Naum Faik, Ashur Yousif, etc

The genocide is overwemingly known as the Assyrian genocide, rather then any other alternative name. But as desribed in the Assyrian genocide page; Other groups, especially those that do not wish to use the ethnic identifier Assyrian, refer to the genocide as Saypā (ܣܝܦܐ), pronounced Sayfo. Thus;

Rule 1 - Since Assyrian genocide is the most common name in English, Assyrian genocide should be the title of that respective page.
Rule 2 - When refering to the genocide in other pages;
A) Assyrian genocide should be used in netural pages (ie pages that have nothing to do with Syriac Orthodox or Assyrians.)
Example of Rule 2.A: Qamishli (since it doesn't have a ACS majority), Persecution of Christians, Diamanda Galás, West Azarbaijan Province, etc
B) When dealing with Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Church or people or its villages, Sayfo or "Assyrian/Syriac genocide" should be used
Example of Rule 2.B: Syriac people, Syriac Orthodox Church, Tur Abdin, Alagöz, Mardin, among others
C) When dealing with Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church or its members or its villages, or self-identified Assyrians but of Syriac Orthodox/Catholic faith; should use Assyrian genocide.
Example of Rule 2.C: Assyrian people, Church of the East, Mar Shimun XXI Benyamin, etc.

Let me know your opinion on each rule. Chaldean (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

each rule sounds good. But where does it say that assyrian genocide is the most common name? AramaeanSyriac (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is general knowledge;
Common google - Assyrian genocide 23,400 [[13]]. Syriac genocide 900 [[14]]. 527 Seyfo genocide [[15]] - Its not even close
Book Search - 17 Assyrian genocide [[16]]. 1 Syriac genocide [[17]]. 3 Seyfo [[18]]
Other enyclopedia's have it as Assyrian genocide [[19]] Chaldean (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I get 15.100 hits for Assyrian genocide [20] and 75.700 hits for Syriac Genocide [21]. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats not how it works. You have to put " " in both sides, to get the right number. You only put it in the end. Chaldean (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The correct name of the Genocide is the Assyrian Genocide in English --WestAssyrian (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not for those rules. I don't think you can compare the genocide to the languages name. The TriZ (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion of a single sentence is not valet if your not going to elaborate the issue and come up with alternative ideas. Chaldean (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You should copy in what Garzo wrote to you in his talkpage about this. The TriZ (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your going have to be more specific then that. If you don't want to put the time, then please don't bother. Chaldean (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wtf are you talking about? You discussed "your" rules with Garzo in his talkpage, and I thought you should summarize the conclusions you and him drawed, since Garzo has a great knowledge in the subject. The TriZ (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We only discussed Syriac language. Instead of using other people's argument, create your own. If you can't do that, then again, don't bother. Chaldean (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm man enough to admit that Garzo knows more than I do about this, so I don't mind using his arguments (if that is okay with him, if course). And don't you want to have more opinions on your "rules", so whats the problem? It seems for me that it is obvious that Garzo didn't agree with all of your "rules", and now your just showing that you infact don't want to improve the articles, you just want to promote your Assyrian propaganda. The TriZ (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems for me that it is obvious that Garzo didn't agree with all of your "rules" - Excuse me? And how did you come with that impression? You love going in circles don't you? I'm moving this meaningless discussion. Chaldean (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, your not. Ant the impression your talking about, written by Garzo, "In an encyclopaedia, 'Assyrian language', when used without qualification, should refer to that variety of Akkadian, and not to Imperial Aramaic, Classical Syriac or Neo-Aramaic, which all have accepted, technical names.". The TriZ (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)