Talk:Western Assyrians/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 AFD 2 Split articles 3 focus 4 Move to Syriacs 5 Requested move 5.1 Survey 5.2 Discussion 6 Requested move 6.1 Survey 7 number 8 flag 9 Is this page necessary?

AFD

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)

This article is about assyrians and therefore will contain information that Assyrians and Assyriologists will know bets about. Therefore, there is no Assyrianist opinion here. Nothing here has been proven wrong, so I object to its deletion. I will in time do my best to see if I can lend some sources. Otherwise, its Innocent until proven Guilty.Tourskin 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Benne, you don't really help your argument do you? What would you know about aramaens? Do you have any sources? The article is well referenced. If you cannot provide some references than this discussion will close because you cannot delete an article because you say so. I admit I don't know much but I will do my best to gather extra knowledgeTourskin 17:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many sources proving that Syriacs recognised their Aramaean heritage. I have provided a number of there sources before, but will for now just give a link to an Aramaean website: [1]. You can check the sources from there. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough about this Aramean talk, I just want to solve the current problem. Can we please come to a compromise with these articles? The current title is highly POV, and I question if we even need an article about this. Whatever that is needed to be discussed about Syriac Orthodox/Catholic can be done so in a thoroughly written article in Syriac Christianity IMO Chaldean 13:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you took the effort to look into those sources (it's not the website itself that's important, but the sources it uses), you will find out that also quite a few church leaders from the East Syriac tradition (Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic) recognised their Aramaean heritage. This is an undeniable fact that cannot be swept under the carpet. If a balanced and neutral article is to be written about the Suryoye/Syrians/Syriacs, the Aramaean heritage must be part of it. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 14:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok fine, now what would the title of this article would be? Chaldean 14:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say: Syriacs. Syriac Christianity is too general, since it also includes the Maronite and Melkite churches, and Syriac churches in India, the members of whom can hardly be considered Syriacs.

Information about Aramaeans should go to Aramaeans, info about Assyrians to Assyrian people, and, perhaps, a separate article could be devoted to the Chaldaean.s --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 14:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I don't like the whole idea of all these separate aritcles is because it is going to make it look like as if these people are really all different kinds of people. If you remember what Gareth said a couple times about how we need to realize that all these groups have more in common then differences. Well we need to reflect that in Wiki, and creating all these separate pages (Chaldean Assyrian, etc) does not reflect reality. So we have a Assyrian culture page - are we going to create Chaldean culture, Aramean culture, so on when all these overlap each other? (all have same culture.) Chaldean 14:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If a balanced and neutral article is to be written about the Suryoye/Syrians/Syriacs, the Aramaean heritage must be part of it. — We Assyrians are not denying that we have Aramaean ancestors. It is you Syriacs, who deny that you have Assyrian ancestors, and you think you're some kind of racially pure Aramaeans. Which of course, is not the least true. As for this site, anyone in his right mind wouldn't take it seriously. That site is a complete joke, full of conspiracy theories. Not one single academic scholar supports their bullshit. It's just revisionism, and distortion of facts. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:53 06 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Chaldean, look, there are articles like Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, etcetera. No one thinks they are different peoples, just because they have different articles. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:56 06 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish topic is a very different one from ours. I don't think you can compare the two. I don't mind having one long article talking about all these things, Aramean, Assyrian, etc, etc of history written from 4750 BC to today. But if were going to do it, we need to make sure we will have people from both sides to participate in it and make sure it is as less of POV as possible. I'm still waiting for Benne's reply. Chaldean 13:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be one article that covers the entire spectre of the Syriac people, as long as it's not called Assyrian people. I suggest Syriacs (or perhaps Syriac Christianity). However, I believe there should also be separate articles for the various subgroups. And about the website: Have you even checked out [the sources? You'll be surprised. Even scholars from Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church mention the Aramaean heritage of the Syriacs. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 07:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Even scholars from Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church mention the Aramaean heritage of the Syriac - What is your point? Syriac Orthodox/Catholic officals proudly talk about their Assyrian heritage as well. Nobody is denying their Aramaic history, but you can't make people change what they call themselves after 3,000 years. Assyrian --> Syrian --> Syriac --> And now were moving back to Assyrian.

I believe there should also be separate articles for the various subgroups. - I am strongly against this.

I think we should start on a page for Syriacs. Let us all first agree that all sides must be shared in the article equally and that any non of the sides should be smired with smart sentences. Go ahead Benne you start: Talk:Syriacs/draft Chaldean 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Benne, we Assyrians, are not in denial. We know that we have Aramaean forefathers, and we acknowledge this. It's you Syriacs, who think you are racially pure Aramaeans, when you are obviously not. The reason why we call ourselves Assyrians, is because that is what we are. You see, Syrian/Syriac, means Assyrian. We have just reinstated the A again. That's all. Yes, we have Aramaean forefathers, but they did not take over the entire middle east. It's just their language, that was spread; not the Aramaean people. Hence, you cannot as a Syriac be a pure Aramaean. Anyway, can we reach a conclusion here? Chaldean, why do you oppose this article? — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:05 07 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

You may believe you are Assyrians, and many other Syriacs with you, no one denies your right to do so. My point is that there is no agreement on this issue among Syriacs. There are many Syriacs who consider themselves Aramaeans, and others who refer to themselves plainly as Suryoye or Süryani. Besides, as I have tried to point out, in the history of the Syriac people, there are many instances where they explicitly acknowledged that they are Aramaeans, until today. Notwithstanding the fact that are some scientists who believe the Assyrianist claim to be correct, there are others who challenge it.

Categorising all Suryoye/Sur(y)âye as Assyrians is therefore not only a denial of the fact that many of them do not classify themselves as such, it also comes down to ignoring that there is no general agreement on this issue among scientists.

Hence, the very title of this article is not in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, let alone its contents. It should therefore be deleted. If you want to write about Syriac Orthodox and Syriacs Catholics who believe they are Assyrians, please do so in the Assyrian people article. Of course, the Syriacs article should reflect the undeniable fact that there many of them who do so, just as it should acknowledge that there are those who consider themselves Christianised Aramaeans. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, the derivation of Syriac from Assyrian, is a theory, not a fact. There are other, contradicting theories.) --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont feel like just going back and forth since I was hoping you would start on the page, but there are many instances where they explicitly acknowledged that they are Aramaeans, until today - then why do you not find a substatial group in the Middle East (specifically in Bet Nahrain) calling themselves as such today? Chaldean 17:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Specifically because they are already marginalized as Christians and to further marginalize themselves along "ethnic" lines would further devestate them. Sharru Kinnu III 18:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Benne, in the Middle East, there are no Syriacs, who believe they are Aramaeans, except of course, in northern Europe, where these lies began. In the Middle East, this Aramaean revisionism, has not spread over there (yet). Why are you spreading lies? There is nothing wrong with the title of this article. It's completely NPOV. You are the one who's biased here. You should study our history without bias. I did. Those who challenge the "Assyrianist" claim, are not scientists. They are priests and of course, as everyone can see on the Aram Nahrin site, lunatics and revisionist liars. — EliasAlucard|Talk 06:40 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Split articles

We need to have seperate Chaldean and Syriac articles explaining why some don't feel they are Assyrian and also that some do and have links pointing to each of the mentioned articles. It's not that difficult. Why are we politicizing Wikipedia? Sharru Kinnu III 17:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Chaldean, why do you oppose this article? - Sharru Kinnu III has just answered my reason. Chaldean 17:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

focus

this article should focus on the community itself, and not ramble about the name "Assyrian". We have names of the Assyrians for that now. The article fails to establish that there is indeed a subgroup known as "Syriac Assyrians". Establish that this is a real subgroup of the Assyrians as a whole, or merge this into Assyrian people.

Find sources: Syriac Assyrians — news, books, scholar -- there are about a dozen non-WP hits on google, and no hits for google news, scholar or books.

dab (𒁳) 08:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see it as under construction. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:24 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Move to Syriacs

Requested move

Syriac Assyrians → Syriacs — The current title is a violation of WP:NPOV, since the name Assyrians is highly disputed, both among the people concerned, as in academics. Syriacs is a direct translation of the self-appelation Suryoye/Sur(y)āye. —Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Strong Keep: They call themselves "Suryoye Othoroye",[2] which means exactly, Syriac Assyrian. The article's title is completely NPOV. No move is needed. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:27 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
• "Syriacs" is the term for the Assyrian people as a whole, not just for the Syriac Orthodox ones. Thus, a move to "Syriacs" is clearly out of the question. But "Syriac Assyrians" is an extremely confusing name, and is not in fact in use. "Western Assyrians" is the proper term. --dab (𒁳) 08:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Without proper discussion, this article has been moved to a POV title. Hence, a new move request.

Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

number

de:Syrisch-Orthodoxe_Kirche_von_Antiochien claims 300,000 are in Europe; adherent.com says 100,000 in the USA. Syriac Orthodox Church claims 600,000 in the Middle East, but adherents.com has only sources estimating 300,000. 700,000 to 900,000 seems to be a reasonable estimate, but as usual, there are no reliable sources. dab (𒁳) 13:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dab, I wouldn't trust anything written about Assyrians/Syriacs on the German version of Wikipedia. It's all cluttered up with Aramaeanist propaganda, and most of it isn't WP:RS and very few sources (or lack thereof) are cited. German Wikipedia about this type of topics, are like, Benne on steroids. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:07 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• Syriac Orthodox 100,000-300,000(USA: 80,000, Germany 50,000)[5]
• Syriac Catholic 100,000[6]

30% of all Syriacs[7], with the 3.3 million high estimate, that's 1 million. That would amount to a range of 0.2-1.0 million. dab (𒁳) 15:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Crappy, outdated source. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:47 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

very constructive. It's the best we have. It is hardly my fault there are is decent census data available. Present better data and everyone will thank you. --dab (𒁳) 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I'll take that back. I do have to give you some credit for at least looking up sources. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:20 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

flag

I was unable to figure out when the flag was designed. Certainly after 1931, when Oppenheim published the Kapara excavations. But probably later, in the 1960s or 1970s. dab (𒁳) 10:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this page necessary?

Facts:

• At least a slight majority of Syriac Ortho/Catholic don't identify themselves as Assyrian, thus the title of the page being very much un-encyclopedic.
• The vast majority if not all call themselves Suraya/Suryoyo.

Honestly this page does nothing but provoke. What is the point of this page? I can please have this question answered? Chaldean 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

All Western Assyrians, call themselves Suryoyo/Suraya. I thought we had agreed on that it means Assyrian? And no, it's not a "slight majority" who identify as Aramaean. Not even in the diaspora. And certainly not in the Middle East. What's provocative about this? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:35 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

since we have Eastern Assyrians and Chaldean Assyrians, it stands to reason we also have a page on this group. The question is not "is it necessary", but "what is the best title". But I suppose we could, and maybe should, merge all three articles back into Assyrian people. In this case, we'll just have to dedicate a section to each group there. Plus, we can keep a separate Aramaean flag to go with de:Aramäer (Gegenwart), covering not the group as such, but the current of "Aramaean nationalism" opposing "Assyrian nationalism". Lots of options, but I do believe we are making progress. At least, I think we are presenting the case much more clearly than used to be the case. dab (𒁳) 16:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No merge is needed. Look, can we move on? We have been arguing about this for weeks, let's actually work on the articles. No more renaming, etc. Also, this very group (those who identify as Assyrians, uses "Western Assyrians" when identifying as Assyrians (as opposed to the Eastern Assyrians). Go ask anyone at www.auf.nu (most of which are Western Assyrians) about the Eastern and Western Assyrians term. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:46 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I did not get my question answered. What is the point of this article. Chaldean 02:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article offending you? Have you gone Benne on us now? — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:14 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Why can't you answer my question? I am not offended, I just asked what is the point of this article? Chaldean 12:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Chaldean ... ;-) I believe the pages should be arranged differently, one page for all the Suryāye (now erroneously and misleadingly called Assyrian people), and separate pages for the current Aramaean and Assyrian nations. Of course, a primordialist as Elias would not like this, but these are the facts we have to deal with. Syro-Aramaeans do not consider themselves part of the Assyrians, and vice versa.

For your information, Elias, there is no agreement that Suryoyo means Assyrian. Athuroyo means Assyrian, Suryoyo means Syrian. The etymology question has no influence on this debate. Many Suryoye do not want to be identified as Assyrians, you may find that frustrating, but that's the way it is.

Perhaps, a separate page for the Western Syriac rite (including Maronites), but I think this sort of information should be included on Syriac Christianity.

And the page for Chaldean Christians should in my opinion be merged with Chaldean Catholic Church. I am not very familiar with the Chaldeans, but I have the impression not many of them consider themselves Chaldeans in terms of ethnicity. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 15:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points. Would it be a problem for anybody if we moved this page to History of the Syriac Orthodox Church? It would still be appropriate to talk about the current community, history, so on. Chaldean 15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• This article has NOTHING to do with the Oromoyo fanatics. It is about the Western Assyrians, who are members of the Syriac Orthodox Church, and identify as Assyrians (yes, they exist in large numbers). Suryoyo, or Syrian, MEANS Assyrian. It is a word derived from the word Assyrian. How many times am I have to going to repeat this until you get it? Aturaye is not something different, they just changed the SH into a T. What the hell, is this so diffucult to understand? No, we don't need to move this article, we need to work on it, and get some more facts. Benne, knock this silly Aramaeanism of yours off. You are not here to spread facts. They don't like to identify as Assyrians, because liars like you have brainwashed them with silly Aramaeanism propaganda. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:56 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe it does, it's just that the title is wrong. I am not going to discuss that silly etymology issue again, let's focus on the facts. The fact is that there are people who call themselves Suryoye, Suryāye, or Surāye, and part of that group identifies with the Assyrian nation, another part with the Aramaean nation. This is clear from the flags they carry. It is a sad thing that people are divided over such a question, but it is a fact. And Wikipedia deals with facts (or at least should do so), not with how contributors would like the world to be. One thing the Suryāye do not disagree about, is the name ܣܘܪ̈ܝܝܐ itself.

History of the Syriac Orthodox Church would be an idea, but Western-rite Syriacs also include Syriac Catholics, and some Protestants. Interesting to note that in Germany, there are a few churches called the Aramäische Freie Christengemeinde. I still believe this sort of information could and should be included in a Syriacs article, dealing with all the Suryāye.

Assyrians, i.e. those who consider themselves to be Assyrians, can have their own page. But don't try to distort the truth by claiming all Syriacs to be Assyrians. These are two different things, also in Syriac. Check out any Syriac dictionary, and you'll see that. You might find that frustrating, but it's like that. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is about the Western Assyrians, who are members of the Syriac Orthodox Church, and identify as Assyrians (yes, they exist in large numbers). - if this is the case, then Benne has every right to create an "Aramaean" page talking about Syriac Orthodox who identify themselves as Aramaya. Do you see how justifying one thing can just lead to more and more splitting of the issue? It simply doesn't make sense. Chaldean 16:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He is of course, free to do that, but I will make sure that article, reports how false this Aramaean identity is, by making the article NPOV. NPOV, of course, implies that we report very accurately, of the term "Aramaean" and when it was once again reintroduced on Assyrians. I'm sure Benne wouldn't like that. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:20 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Probably just as much as you don't like it every time I point out your silly attempts to Assyrianise everything Syriac ... --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry man, I'm just going after academic scholars, whilst you are doing some silly revisionism. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:34 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

This is impossible. I am done for now. Chaldean 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)