Talk:Syriacs/miniproject/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

I think that it is a very good idea, but I would like to make a complete collection of the syriac people, that is culture, religion, history, geography, important persons and so on. so that the picture of the syriac people will be much clearer. And I agree with that the Syriac name does cover the whole topic and can be used as an umbrella for all other names as aramean, assyrian, chaldean and so on. I would also like to stress out that our work shouldnt be based on the nationalistic views, we should rather to bring out the truth and to give a clear picture of the syriac people, And I hope that when the reader reads syriac then you know that I mean all denominations as arameans/assyrians/chaldeans and so on. Suryoyo

I've started this off to bring our discussions together. I'll put a message on the talk pages of those articles directly affected. I'll also remove current merge requests: I think the whole issue needs to be dealt with as one. --Gareth Hughes 12:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, Gareth. But I think we should start this project by choosing a name that is impartial, and covers the whole topic. I'd like to suggest "Arameans/Assyrians/Chaldeans", or simply "Syriacs". --Benne 14:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the discussion had to take place somewhere, and this name has two parts to it. The name on this page doesn't matter so much: it's how we define names in the articles that's more important. All of these articles are realted to one another, so it's good to have a centralised discussion. --Gareth Hughes 18:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It does underline the current dominance of Assyrianist terminology though. References to the Aramean heritage of the Syriacs are found in the writings of many authors in both the West and East Syriac traditions. See for example the site of the Syriac Universal Alliance. I strongly urge you to at least include the Arameans in the name of this project. In my opinion, a neutral point of view requires and implies a neutral name. Not very beautiful, but perhaps a way out of this discussion could be referring to the people as such:

Syriacs (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)

This can vary according to the presence or absence of a specific group in an area. --Benne 19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Assyro-Chaldean is a good name. That is also what the Assyrians/Chaldeans decided to be named in Iraq. As Gareth says, its how we define names in the articles thats important.

As you can see from the main page, I divided up articles into 'direct' and 'indirect'. That's because I would like us to look at the 'ethnic' articles first, and debate the definition of these labels. Then we can see howe these definitions feed into the other articles. I think that we can agree the Aramaeans/Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans constitute a single people group defined by culture and history. Although for much of their recent history they have been subsumed into Arab culture, they remain distinct. The differing labels we have today are all relatively modern, and each has its own set of nuances. In spite of this, there is a continuum of culture binding them together. The culture is based on two major elements: language and faith. The language consists of a number of dialects of eastern Aramaic. The most important of these is the classical Aramaic of Edessa/Orhay/Urhoy. This language has been called Syriac/Suryaya/Suryoyo, originally rejecting the name Aramaic/Aramaya/Oromoyo as being linked to the pre-Christian past. It is interesting to note that today names that link the people to their pre-Christian past are now back in favour. There are a number of dialects that have always existed alongside the classical/literary language. Some of these dialects form a continuum, like Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, others are quite different, like Hertevin and Senaya. The Christian faith is an equal partner in the formation of this culture, and an understanding of the labels is partly based on confessional divisions within the church. Although terms like Nestorian and Monophysite are widely rejected today, the bitterness behind these names underline the sense of separation from European Christianity. The Assyrian Church of the East has its roots in Imperial Persia, beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire: its separation from the rest of the church was thus as much due to socio-political factors as anything else. Members of this church almost invariably chose to be known as Assyrians. However, the adoption of this name by the church is a relatively new phenomenon. The lack of stability of the eastern reaches of the Byzantine Empire and christological controversies led to Syriac-speaking Christians feeling alienated from Byzantium, and their separation along with Copts and Armenians. The coming of Roman Catholic missionaries in the last few centuries led to further splintering of the church into groups which sought reunion with the West, and those who resisted it. Particularly, Rome chose to call pro-Catholic former adherants of the Church of the East 'Chaldeans'. This may have been based on various sources, but its usage promated the name. Many members of the Chaldean Catholic Church use Chaldean to describe themselves. However, many prefer to be known as Assyrian. Many members of the Syriac Orthodox Church prefer the name Syriac/Syrian for themselves. This is encouraged by the church hierarchy, and its use is sometimes tied to political stance supportive of the Syrian Government. Thus SOC members within Syria are less likely to use any other label. However, members of SOC in Turkey, Iraq and the diaspora tend to be more likely to prefer the name Assyrian for themselves, and are less likely to choose to be known as Syriacs. This has led to 'Assyrian' being the generally preferred name for this culture and its people, and the rejecton of denominational labels. However, as there is a substantial number of Chaldeans in Iraq, the label Assyro-Chaldean has been used to underline the commonality of the two names. This is, however, a modern compromise, and has no source in history. The name Syriac is still preferred by scholarship. It has been used more than any other term historically to describe Aramaic-speaking Christians regardless of their confession. Just a few thoughts. I know some will disagree with a few sentences, but most of it is all quite acceptable. We just have to hammer out the bumps! --Gareth Hughes 18:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Moved to Syriacs/miniproject

Since the Maronites article is considered to be a part of this project, the name Assyro-Chaldeans could in my opinion no longer be maintained. Not that the project was properly named before the Maronites were included in the list, but adding to the Maronites talk page the miniproject tag as it was would be incorrect and inappropriate. I bet you won't find many, if any, Maronites who call themselves Assyrians. (There are those who consider themselves Arameans, however.) Therefore, the only name applicable to the project is Syriacs. In the end, that is the English equivalent of the name that people from both Syriac traditions use, both West (Suryoye) and East (Suryāye).

Fush ba-shlomo/Push ba-shlāmā. ----Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why "the Maronites article is considered to be a part of this project": I've never heard of Maronites calling themselves Syriacs or Assyrians, nor Aramaeans, only a few separatist (called neo-shu'ubiya by your compatriot Leonard Biegel) Maronite ideologues claim a Mardaite or Phenician ancestry, but even they don't claim to be Assyrians or Syriacs. If the criterium for an article over an ethnic group "to be a part of this project" is the present or past use of aramaic or syriac languages or dialects, I guess one could also add Targumi Jews and Mandaeans/Sabaeans e.g. You speak the language, OK, but this is not a problem of language here, it is a problem of naming what's not a single ethnic group that some people try to unite. When Assyrians of all creed, mostly "Assyro-Chaldeans", fled to the Russian Caucasus, present-day Armenia and Georgia, the ethnonym that was applied to them was Aisor, i.e. Assyrians, idem with the Assyrian Democratic Organisation in the 1950s in Syria, where there were "Assyro-Chaldeans" as weel as "Syriacs". The only motive behind the use of "Syriacs" as an ethnonym comes from the Syriac Church, to prevent the emergence of a nondenominational Assyrian identity that would encompass followers of the 4 churches plus people who no longer define themselves through these sectarian lines. --Pylambert 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Please, check out Beith Morounoye. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be the site of one person, Samir Georges from Ottawa. As there's not much in English or French on the site, I don't know more about him or his project. It certainly does not substantiate any claim to include Maronites among "Syriacs". Anyhow, syriac/aramaean was the main language in the region before its arabisation and islamisation, so most present-day inhabitants of "Greater Syria" or the "fertile Crescent" have "Syriac" roots, but a past (or present) common language is not enough to form a common ethnic group with a single ethnonym, things are not so easy. See also: Phoenicianism and Mardaites. The ethnic and national identities in post-Ottoman countries are not that easy to determine, and self-denomination is not necessarily a valid criterium because of taqiya, religious affiliations or sectarianism, fear of persecution etc. In Armenia, Yezidi Kurds want to be recognized as a separate Yezidi ethnic minority to be differentiated from the Muslim Kurds, in Romania and Poland the surviving refugees from the Greek Civil War and their descendants have recently been counted separately in censuses, and have distinct ethnic organizations, i.e. Greek and Macedonian. Ethnic identities are not eternal (see Barth and other authors), nor are they automatically linked to a specific language. --Pylambert 11:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
One more example: Letter From Chorbishop Kaddo asking the Lebanese Maronites to register their ethnicity as Syriacs. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Self-appellations in Turkey and European diaspora

I am not so sure I agree with the following statement made by Gareth:

However, members of SOC in Turkey, Iraq and the diaspora tend to be more likely to prefer the name Assyrian for themselves, and are less likely to choose to be known as Syriacs.

I realise that there is a strong current of Assyrianism among Syriacs in the European diaspora, but we should not underestimate the number of people who identify themselves as Arameans. There is a considerable number of organisations in the Netherlands and Germany that carry the name "Aramean", and I have the impression that the name Aramäer has become a very common self-identification in Germany. Interesting in this regard is the Aramäische Freie Christengemeinde in Bietigheim, Germany. Also, in an article in Der Spiegel on January 5, Syriacs are referred to as "Aramäer" only. These facts cannot and should not be disregarded in an encyclopedia that aspires to be neutral.

As for Turkey, the name Süryani has for centuries been, and as far as I know continues to be the most commonly used self-appellation, at least among West Syriacs. Not an authoritative source, but perhaps an indication might be suryaniler.com --the predominantly Turkish-language website for Syriacs--, where Süryani appears to be the prevalent name, more so than Aşuri (Assyrian) and Arami (Aramean).

This is an issue that needs to be thoroughly researched. Is anyone aware of statistical data in this regard? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Syriac article

There is lots of work to be done for the syriac article, the information about the syriacs in wikipedia is not organized.

1. We must agree on that the name Syriacs is from the word Syrian(Suryoyo) and that in modern times we have several identifications of syriacs as an nation some examples(Assyrian,aramean,chaldean,maronite).

The identity of the Syriacs should be considered as following when merging all the political wings.

1- Syriacs are an ethnic group.

2- Syriacs have several ethnic roots mostly(assyrian/aramean) but still other from the geografical syro- mesopotamia.

3- Syriacs are from Bethnahrin.

4- Syriac nation is Bethnahrin.

5- Syriac history starts from the sumerian ages to the diaspora.

6- Syriac are the indigious people of Bethnahrin.

7- Syriacs as a nation have the Aramaic language, but in history they have other, as accadian and other local languages. the neo aramaic have many ties with accadians wich was used by the assyrians and others babylonians(accadians/amorites...). and the local languages of the amorites(ethnically proto arameans).

8- Syriac in the middeaveal times have had several kingdoms, petra(Rekem), palmyra(Tadmor), Edessa(Urhoy), Sinjar, Hatra, Adiabene.

9- The last syriac stronghold is in the kesrwain mountains in lebanon. wich is the last stronghold for an independent state for syriacs. lasted from 678AD to 1305AD. and this is one of the major reasons why "maronites" are so strong in lebanon.

10- for the one that is interested kesrwain -> Kesroain, the one who can read syriac knows what this means. "Like Osroene", whereas osroene is -> "ten eyes", K->Like esro->ten, eyn->eyes. that is the people that moved from the kingdom of Bethesro(Edessa) called the lebanon mountains for kesrowain.

These above is just a few examples of the forming of the syriac identity.

11- for the last, it should be explaind very thoroughly about that the aramean/assyrian ideology is just a modern attempt [singel ethnic- nationalistic] way to create an identity of syriacs.

anyhow, I believe that put a good foundation for the syriac article by merging/integrating existing articles to the syriacs, [dont read syriac article]. But to the syriac people in wikipedia. one example is for example of Zenobia who is of Syriac descent but still several persons dispute this and claims that she is of other ethnicity. It is like to say that for example if aristoteles was born in athens, that he was athenian and not a greek.

Meaning of Syriac

Our view of what "Syriac" stand for is confusing. First of all I have made some thinking about this. I live in Sweden and the Arameans/Assyrians from Turkey namethemselves "Syrianer", "Syrianer" is not translated into english as far as I know since Syriac in english would be "Syrisk" in Swedish. The church is called "Syrianska Ortodoxa Kyrkan" here and sometimes "Syrisk Ortodoxa Kyrkan". The translated word for that is not "the Syrian Orthodox Church" as some of you may think now since "Syrian" means a citizen of Syria. The group you call "Syriacs" here, do not name themselves as "Syriacs" in Sweden nor the rest of Europe, they name themselves "Syrianer" in Sweden and "Aramäer" in Germany. Syriac = Syrisk in Swedish and we dont use that name here nor the rest of Europe to describe us. Some of us see Syriac as a modern term for our language while others see it as our church, and it is our church of course. But calling all the "Syrianer (Suryoye)" for Syriacs is wrong. My conclusion for this is that "Syriac" can not be the term for the "Syrianer (Suryoye)" since they do not use it. Syriac should be mentioned as the language and The Syriac Orthodox Church. But we have another problem,though. What the Suryoyes term should be since I know that Syriac is wrong because its not used in public. We could call all the Suryoye (Syrianer) for Arameans but all Suryoye do not see themselves as Arameans thats another fact so we have a big problem! My suggestion is that Syriac should only be termed as a language and The Syriac Orthodox Church. Although it could also represent all Assyrians/Chaldeans/Arameans but thats not fair to those in its people that does not accept the Syriac term for all groups. As far as I and many of you know "Assyrian" is a far more popular term then the others and they constitute the majority of the people so perhaps should it be the term for all the divided groups? I know that Assyro-Chaldean is accepted within the Assyrian partys but then the Arameans are left alone but when i think it over, isnt that the Arameans goal? I've read a lot of Aramaic propaganda and I've noticed it contains a lot of hate to the Assyrian term and its population. I think we must do something about this and think over and change our way of seeing these divied groups. The Assyrians and Chaldeans see eachother as one people with different Churches. Its only the Arameans left to accept their brothers as equal. It's a very complicated people both in religion,language and the terms. As many of us know the Assyrians/Arameans/Chaldeans are going for their end as it seems today. Then in the future our problem will be what we will call them. I hope you who read this have got some information about the situation. --Yohanun 18:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that 2000 census in the USA made it clear that all "Syrianer" (Suryoye) will be named Syriacs. Is it a fact that the US is trying to split us even more since they have done nothing but only betrayal in our home countrys, especially Iraq?--Yohanun 20:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In the United States, the ancestry code list for the 2000 Census included 482 ASSYRIAN/CHALDEAN/SYRIAC, 483 ASSYRIAN, 484 CHALDEAN and 485 SYRIAC, the language code list 779 SYRIAC, 779 Aramaic, 779 Assyrian and 779 Chaldean, the race code list 112 Assyrian (categories from 100 to 199: "White race"). It is thus very clear: Syriac for the language, Assyrian or Chaldean or Syriac for "ancestry" and Assyrian for "race", i.e. ethnic or ethnonational group as other such "races" are Arab, English, French, German, Armenian, Lebanese, Israeli, Syrian etc. -> nor "Syriac" nor "Aramean" nor "Chaldean". Idem for censuses in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Armenia, Georgia, see Assyrian diaspora. --Pylambert 07:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Does this article belong outside the main encyclopedic space?

Does this article belong outside the main encyclopedic space? I am sure that projects belong elsewhere. bobblewik 17:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Assyrianism nominated for deletion

The article Assyrianism has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to participate in the debate. --LambiamTalk 02:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive 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.