Talk:Syriacs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Check this page

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/30683
Aram Nahrin - the Aramaeans, the Bible, Christianity and the WestBy Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis www.americanchronicle.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.205.87 (talk • contribs)

He's not a Doctor and he's not a scholar and if you take his opinion seriously you should be ignored on Wiki. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 21:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you said the same thing about Dr. Assad Sauma Assad.VegardNorman (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, the guy claims that Europeans today are actually Assyrians.[1] You don't have to be a genius to figure out that his hilarious theories are in no way based on facts. No serious anthropologist claims that modern Europeans are Assyrians. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syriacs are a ethnic group, they are not assyrians

Syriacs are recognized as a ethnic group in the whole world in countrys as sweden, netherlands, turkey, syria, lebanon (arameans) etc. only in sweden there are 80 000 SYRIACS. the Syriac national association in sweden got 20 000 members against the assyrian national association in swedens 8 000 members. i am syriac, and im under a another flag, the syriac flag that is way different from the assyrian flag. i have another history ( the aramean history) when you have your own "assyrian" history. there are millions of people worldwide calling them self SYRIACS (suryoye oromoye) that is differnet from ASsyrians (Suryoye othoroye). there is a syriac channel called SURYOYO SAT, and its logo is the Syriac/aramaic flag. there is the Syriac/aramaic universal alliance and their logo is the syriac/aramaic flag. the syriac/aramaic party in lebanon is called aramaic democratic organisatoin and its party logo is the syriac/aramaic flag. and the syriac people in lebanon call them selfs for syriac/arameans. it is only you CHALDEAN and ELIASALUCARD that thinks that the syriacs are "assyrians". i can put up 600 sources and references that shows that we, the syriacs, are a ethic group and descendants to the ARAMAEANS, not the "assyrians". 85.226.122.174 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Syriacs are recognized as a ethnic group in the whole world in countrys as sweden, netherlands, turkey, syria, lebanon (arameans) - prove it, bring sources. Until then, stop editing. Chaldean (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Evidence and quotes that syriacs are arameans http://www.urhoy.info/2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.122.174 (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not "Evidence". I don't think you know how Wikipedia works. You need reliable sources to back up your claim, not some extermist nationalist website. We and many other members have discussed this issue and have ultimatly proven that, first: no country recognizes "Syriac" as a ethnic group. Second: All nations recognize the Syriac speaking nation as Assyrians, as proven with census date from these countries. Please don't edit other people's comments. Chaldean (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Chaldean: This is not true for Sweden, where the government speaks of "assyrier/syrianer". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I would love some kind of source for this. Second of all, this user is trying to claim Syrainer are Aramean. Does Sweden support this too? Chaldean (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You can do a google search over Swedish government sites, for example http://www.google.se/search?q=assyrier+site:.gov.se . In most instances, 'assyrian' occurs in combination with 'syrianer'. This is also true for a search on 'syrianer' , which gives approximately the same number of hits. Of 'arameer' I found only one example on the Swedish goverment site. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The Swedish government is no authority on this (and really has nothing to say about this). Wikipedia relies on published academic sources published by experts. Most experts say that Syriacs are Assyrians. There are a few experts (Brock) who states that we have an Aramaean cultural heritage (as in language), but the academic consensus is that we're Assyrians. And no, Sweden doesn't support that we're Aramaeans. All so called "aramaeans" are known as Syrianer here. And we all know what that means. The current article is shit and uses a few age old statements as some sort of expertise. This is not an article about an ethnic group. To claim that Syriacs are an ethnic group is like saying Roman Catholics are an ethnic group. The ethnic group is Assyrian. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Both are ethnic groups, how hard is this to understand? -- Livlinan (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I love how all these new users pop out of nowhere. Chaldean (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that a great thing? An article should not be centralized around a small group. -- Livlinan (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, as we've concluded at svwiki the problem was that the users were using their own definition of an "ethnic group". It really is not hard to understand a basic things such as this one. All you need to do is actually reading the article on ethnicity and realizing both group fit the conditions needed. I don't sympathize much with national extremists trying to turn an article into their skew picture of reality. It is not Wikipedias job to unite the groups under the name "Assyrians" so they can grow strong and get their land Assyria. -- Livlinan (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

The background of the edit war is that there is an Assyrian name controversy, which at least in Sweden has lead to some violence. A significant part of the immigrants with a background in Syriac Christian communities reject the connections with the ancient culture of the Assyrian empire. Some of these claim instead connections to the ancient Aramaeans. This article, in its present form, claims that Abgar V of Edessa was an Aramaean king. Following legend, this article claims that this Abgar (historically contemporary with Jesus) converted his realm to Christianity. So this is all very partisan, and unlikely to produce stable articles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syriacs"

Thank you for your superfluous and uninformed description, Pieter. This topic has been discussed to death here on English Wiki. It's not a new subject and we really don't need your input on it. A consensus has been established that "Syriacs" should redirect to the disambiguation page, Syriac (disambiguation) and that the article Assyrian people, per WP:COMMONNAME for the ethnic group in question, should deal with the subject. No need to act like a superhero by trying to be an expert on a subject you know nothing about. Thank you. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Objection: consensus has never been reached. EliasAlucard has just got his way in pushing his assyrianist agenda. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Translation: Hello, I'm User:Benne, I'm just sorry because I never got it my way and because my sources are not academic. I have never really been able to present any valid case of academic sources; all I do is refer to urhoy.info and aramnahrin.org which are websites run by lunatics and psycopaths. Besides that, all I do is run around WP:STALK Assyrian-related articles, and POV-push and instigate revert-wars. This is my main purpose for editing on Wikipedia. I don't edit other types of articles, I'm just here to cause disruption in well written Assyrian related articles and make them all Syriac-Aramaic. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that this 'translation' was beyond the pale, and I have reported it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Civility issue: mock-impersonation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Good for you Pieter. I hope you're proud now. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside observation

Hello fellow editors. A note to administrator's noticeboard indicates there may be a contentious issue here. If editors here have questions about neutral-point-of-view, original research or verifiability I recommend posting your concern to those articles Talk pages. Also see the reliable sources noticeboard. If common ground cannot be achieved, you might look at our dispute resolution procedures. Thanks, and have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been considering the thought of taking this to arbitration. It's not just one article we're talking about here. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure but the first thing is going to be "Has the user group tried dispute resolution?" ArbCom will generally take cases that present novel situations or situations involving high-level editors/admins. They don't generally get involved in every squabble. So I'd still suggest the alternatives I proposed above. Have a great day!Wjhonson (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriacs/Aramaeans dispute has an article, explaining it all very extensively: Assyrian naming dispute (pretty much all academic sources by the way). We've had revert wars, disputes, and veeeery very very long and tired discussions about this. Do you think I should take this to mediation first? Because seriously, I'm sick of this issue popping up every now and then. In any case, please unlock this article and redirect it to Syriacs (disambiguation) because the current article is 200% WP:OR violation (and most likely also a copyvio of some Aramaeanist website, such as http://www.arameiska.se/ ). In any case, this is not a serious article and a POV magnet. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Elias, going through the suggested procedures is a great learning process, in my humble opinion, for how to diffuse conflict. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, I do not think you have a grasp of this quite yet. This has a long history. Elias (for once!) is perfectly right: this isn't a content dispute, it is a simple WP:CFORK. Of course questions of content should be discussed along the lines you point out, but not under a forked title. Your template message in this case is not particularly helpful. Try to look at the case before giving generic advice: a long-standing redirect was removed by an anon a week ago, immediately triggering an edit war. Let this be turned back into the redirect, and let debate on whether to create a standalone "Syriacs" article take place at Talk:Syriac (disambiguation). Debate will have to be sought by the party wishing to create the fork, before the fork is created. In Especially in a topic with a massive history of debate such as this. this case, the answer is a clear "no", since by "Syriacs" we mean "Syriac Christians", which is an existing redirect linked off the Syriac (disambiguation) page. dab (𒁳) 13:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with dab. Oh and by the way Dab, I created Syriac-Aramaic people a few weeks ago, they can try to include their WP:OR there and let us see if their sources can hold any water enough to constitute a WP:NPOV article. But they need to stop the OR/POV pushing on other articles such as Assyrian people, etc. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no dog in this race. Anytime content is disputed, including forking or anything else, editors should review the dispute resolution procedures. That's my opinion. Wjhonson (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] turn back into redirect

this article is a content fork. It needs to be turned back into a redirect to Syriac (disambiguation). Anything else is unconstructive edit warring. dab (𒁳) 13:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It will probably be necessary to lock the redirect. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with dab and yes it needs to be locked in order to prevent more edit warring. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. – Steel 00:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Great. One less revert-war problem in our midst. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)