Talk:Arameans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RFC on purpose of this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article only contain information relevant to the ancient people? Mugsalot (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This article and History of the Aramean people should only contain information relevant to the ancient people, and all content about the modern people that identify by the label "Aramean" should be solely detailed on the Assyrian people article. I will first provide context for those who are not familiar with this subject.

As summarised by Gaunt (2011), "“Assyrian” is a designation of a Christian ethnic group living in central Kurdistan". Under the Ottoman Empire, "the Assyrians were not usually identified as an ethnic group but were rather categorised by religion". Gaunt distinguishes between "eastern Assyrians", consisting of adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church and Church of the East (now split between the Ancient Church of the East and Assyrian Church of the East), and "western Assyrians", consisting of adherents of the adherents of the Syriac Orthodox Church and Syriac Catholic Church, and some Protestants. Discussing adherents of the Syriac Orthodox Church and Chaldean Catholic Church, for example, Numansen & Ossewaarde state, "these peoples originally spoke different Aramaic dialects and called themselves Syriac-Orthodox and Chaldean. The identifications, Syriac-Orthodox and Chaldean, were based on their membership in the Syriac-Orthodox church and the Chaldean Catholic church, which, in the Ottoman Empire, were both recognised as different milieux".

In modern times, the term "Assyrian" has come to denote "the supposed ethnic group represented by all the Syriac churches". In the United States, adherents of the aforementioned churches "managed to renegotiate their denominational conflicts and united behind the term “Assyrian”", and "only after World War II does it appear that the ethnic identification of Assyrian became controversial when applied to members of the Syrian Orthodox Church: the Syrian patriarch instituted a campaign in 1946 to eradicate its use". Subsequently, "many Syriac Orthodox individuals and groups have resisted the adoption of an Assyrian identity and ideology. As an alternative, some have developed an Aramean identity and ideology". "After migrating to Western Europe following another wave of persecution in Turkey, they began questioning their own identity constructs that had been shaped in the context of the Ottoman Empire. As migrants in Western Europe, most of the Syriac-Orthodox people reported that they identified and presented themselves as ‘Aramean’ or ‘Assyrian’, while the Chaldeans continued to define themselves as Chaldeans". In Sweden, "after a period of 'hegemonic use of the designation' Assyrian (Assyrier in Swedish) in the 1960s and 1970s, the Assyrian movement, particularly in the Swedish diaspora, was opposed by...the emergence of the Aramean (Syrianska in Swedish) movement".

A number of users have asserted, without evidence, that the people that identify as Aramean and Assyrian are separate from one another ethnically and thus should be treated separately. No single reliable source argues in favour of this position. On the one hand, Assyrian organisations, such as the Assyrian Universal Alliance, assert that Arameans are a "sub-identity" of the Assyrian people [1], and on the other hand, Aramean organisations, such as the Aram-Naharaim Organisation argue Arameans include Assyrians [2]. It is clear this simply a debate within this ethnic group over what to call themselves, and neither side argues the other is ethnically separate from them.

McClure states, "The uncertainty about the roots of the ethnic group, Assyrian, Aramean, other, or a combination thereof, has given rise to very acrimonious debates over the very names to be used in designating it...Its people have called themselves and been called by others Assyrians, Suryaye, Suraye, Suroye, Curyaye, Syriani, Aramaeans, Chaldeans, Assyro-Chaldeans, among other labels", and she herself uses Assyrian to refer to this ethnic group "since that is the term currently given greatest acceptance". One can also see "Assyrian" is the common label to refer to this ethnic group in academia.

With this in mind, I firmly believe the modern people that identify as Aramean should be included on the Assyrian people article, and this article should solely cover the ancient people by that name, as the current state of this article suggests they are separate, and that Aramean is the common name in English, contrary to the reality. Mugsalot (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have opinions on this subject, but I assume the people of the Aramaic Wikipedia do. Have you considered asking them? They are at number 240 in the list of wikipedias. There could be other language wikipedias I'm unaware off, that might be helpfull in this discussion. Dutchy45 (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, I am not sure how many RFC discussions you want to open until to reach consensus to meet your own personal goal, without showing willingness to cooperate and finding solutions to solve this ongoing issue from a neutral point of view in the sense of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not from your own personal point of view or political driven edits by Assyrian nationalists. I am probably repeating myself: The current Assyrian people article is mixing ancient Assyrians, Assyrian nationalism, and Assyrian identity & ideology, rejected not only by people who identify as Arameans, but also by academia. Therefore the "Assyrian" terminology is highly disputed in academia, not commonly accepted as you stated, to describe the group as a WHOLE or various Syriac-Christian groups, which must be addressed on English Wikipedia, NOT SUPPORTED, in order to maintain its credibility. This explains the countless edit warrings on English Wikipedia, not only between Assyrians and Arameans, but also by outsiders like me who address this issue! A lot of editors specialised in Aramean-related topics were blocked by unfamiliar administrators, because of wrong accuses, mostly reported by a growing number of Assyrian POV editors. The current "Assyrian people" article's content, title and through numerous Assyrian POV editing on various Wikipedia articles by editors such as Mugsalot over the decade, created an illusion in line with Assyrian propaganda, e. g. that Arameans don’t exist or are an "Assyrian subgroup", they are not descendants of the ancient Arameans etc. in stark contrast to what other academic sources say, therefore misleading readers and hurting English Wikipedia's credibility. Most of these Assyrian POV written articles are either poorly referenced or only contain sources to support Assyrian POVs.

To unfamiliar users, please read the closed RFC-discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Arameans

“a careful reading of Parpola’s articles and the introduction to Assyrian Prophecies reveals arguments that are often circular and flawed, in which, by virtue of an enthusiastic presentation, what remains to be proved is transformed into evidence for a construction that resembles doctrine more than theory” - J.Cooper “Assyrian prophecies the Assyrian Tree and the Mesopotamian origins of Jewish monotheism, Greek philosophy, Christian theology, Gnosticism, and much more” in the Journal of the American Oriental Society 120:3 (2000) p430

The Church of the East and the Church of England: A History of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Assyrian Mission J. F. Coakley p366 "I refer here to the link created between the modern 'Assyrians' and the ancient Assyrians of Nineveh know to readers of the Old Testament. The link has proved irresistible to the imagination. In modern times, Syrian children have been named 'Sargon', 'Nebuchadnezzar'. etc.; the winged lions of Nineveh have appeared as national symbols; and, in short, the name is now inseprable from a whole bogus ethnology."

Dorothea Weltecke Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East Page:120 "But when he named those decendants of Shem who possess a script he says the following: 'These are the names of the people who have script among the descendants of Shem: Chaldeans, Oturoye [Assyrians], who are the Suryoye [Syriacs], Hebrew, Persians, Medes, Arabs'. A few pages before he said: 'These are the descendants pf Shem, Oturoye [Assyrians], Chaldeans, Lydians, Oromoye [Arameans], that is, Suryoye [Syriacs]'. Who are the Suryoye [Syriacs] to Michael: Assyrians or Arameans? While is painful for outspoken Arameans to be identified with the Assyrians, one has to bear in mind, that following Jacob of Edessa, Michael also supports the hypothesis that Assyrians are descendants of the Arameans. For Michael, Aramaic is the original language spoken not only in all of the ancient Near Eastern empires but by mankind in general, before the confusion of the languages after the building of the Tower of Babel took place. While Michael was not the first to hold this opinion, his position will be underlined here to highlight the difference betweenhis and modern viewpoints of Assyrians and Arameans."

S.P.Brock and J.F.Coakley, Syriac Heritage Encylopedic Dictionary p31:"Bardaisan is described as Suryoyo [Syrian] and Aramoyo [Aramean]""Ya'qub of Edessa, in his 'Encheiridion' and elsewhere, speaks of 'we are Suryoye [Syriacs], or Aramoye [Arameans]'.""This equation [Syriac = Aramean] is further elaborated in Appendix II to Michael Rabo's [Michael the Syrians] Chronicle."(See Dorothea Weltecke)

S.P.Brock and J.F.Coakley, Syriac Heritage Encylopedic Dictionary p31:"In many Syriac writers Aramoyo [Aramean] and Suryoyo [Syriac] are synonyms; normally this refers to the language, but on occasion they are used as alternate ethnic terms"

--Optra2021 (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dutchy45: German Wikipedia's administrators did the best job and brought transparency to the whole controversial topic without favoring any position by creating independent and specific articles. No edit warrings over there with Assyrians POV editors claiming Arameans to be "Assyrians" and vice versa. They kept the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia in line with its policy; welcoming high-quality academic sources and Information, no matter if it is pro-contra Assyrian or pro-contra Aramean etc, accommodated into various articles. The current Assyrian people article and the whole situation on English Wikipedia heavily lacks neutrality, especially since the whole topic is related to a minority group or groups, most people aren't aware of or interested in.  

•ancient pre-Christian Arameans:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramäer_(Volk)

•modern Arameans (identity & ideology):

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramäer_(Gegenwart)

•ancient pre-Christian Assyrians:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrer

•modern Assyrians (identity & ideology):

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrer_(Gegenwart)

•common pre-nationalistic terminology called Syrian, Syriac, Suryoye, Suraye,... covering all groups (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Maronites, Melkites,...) before the rise of various national movements similar to the Terms for Syriac Christians article:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suryoye

•Dutch Wikipedia:

•ancient + modern Arameans:

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arameeërs

•ancient + modern Assyrians:

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyriërs_(volk)

•Dutch Wikipedia has a whole article regarding the nameconflict (identity & ideology) between Assyrians, Arameans and Maronites, we currently see on English Wikipedia:

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naamconflict_Syrische_christenen

•French Wikipedia:

•ancient + modern Arameans:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araméens_(chrétiens_orientaux)

•ancient + modern Assyrians:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyriens

Like I said before, me and many others are willing to find a solution from a neutral point of view to finally fix this situation for good. The current situation on English Wikipedia, however, and the behaviour of some of its administrators and "editors" are unacceptable.

--Optra2021 (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Optra2021:Looks like I wandered into a minefield with my first comment. I'm staying out of this 1. I hope it gets resolved correctly. Dutchy45 (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support some kind of topic-separation improvement, without religio-politicizing it. I don't have the patience to wade through all this invective and counter-complaint, much less trawl through previous rounds of it here, but we obviously have a WP:COATRACK and WP:DISAMBIGUATION problem going on. Some combination of the solutions reached by the other-language Wikipedias detailed above should get the job done, though at this point I don't have a highly specific preference, other than I don't think the nl.wikipedia approach of having a separate article on the naming conflicts is necessary. Anyway, I believe this can be resolved by having more clearly distinct articles and using various disambiguation techniques, and that it should be resolved in such a way, regardless whether any accusations are true that someone or other has some ulterior motive behind some of their personal reasoning about it. There is an actual problem to address here, when it comes to clarity for readers, and we have pretty standardized ways of resolving such issues. Someone could be a tinfoil-hat-wearing believer in aliens conspiring with the government to abduct and mutilate cattle, and yet still be able to correctly point out that an article or set of articles is unnecessarily and confusingly commingling two distinct topics. So, let's just fix it and stop trying to make it personal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I agree there should be separation between the ancient peoples and the modern people, and that includes both Assyrians and Arameans, as there does seem to be consensus in academia that this is the case. However, it is abundantly clear from the evidence I set out that the modern "Arameans" and "Assyrians" are the same ethnic group, and that "Assyrian" is the common term to refer to the whole ethnic group in English. I would agree there is a WP:COATRACK with Assyrian people that prioritises Assyrian culture over that of those who identify as Aramean, and that would need to be remedied in the future, but only so long as there's acknowledgement that they're considered two sides of the same coin, so to speak.

I would thus propose something in line with the German Wikipedia solution whereby ancient Assyrian content is moved from Assyrian people to Assyria or Neo-Assyrian Empire, this article remains purely for the ancient Aramean people with a brief mention of the modern identity, and the Assyrian people article be used exclusively for the modern people, including all identities (Chaldean, Aramean, Assyrian). In regard to the Dutch name conflict article, we have the equivalent Terms for Syriac Christians, which ideally is merged with Assyrian people. Mugsalot (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Assyria or Neo-Assyrian Empire are geographical article titles, not a people. They don’t give hints about the ancient Assyrians. You are misleading readers by the current "Assyrian people" article title in believing the ancient Assyrians and modern "Assyrians" (incl the Arameans) are the same people, while ancient Arameans and modern Assyrians are not the same, thus supporting Assyrian POVs, which claims to be descendants of the ancient Assyrians. Like I said, the "Assyrian" terminology is disputed and controversial in academia. The reason being, the term "Assyrian" is connected to Assyrian identity, ancient Assyrians, ideology, nationalism, religious (See: Assyrian Church of the East, evident in articles such as Assyrian nationalism or Assyrian continuity. The current Assyrian people's article content contains all of these points, which are rejected, not only by people who identify as Arameans, but also by many scholars. This explains the reason for the ongoing edit warrings on English Wikipedia, because the articles are modeled after Assyrian propaganda for almost more than a decade! Even if they are regarded as the same people, it must be addressed from a neutral point of view that a consensus among academic sources about a generic term let it be Assyrian, Aramean or Chaldean similar to the situation of South-Slavic peoples (Serbians, Bosnians, Croatians,...) doesn't exist except for the pre-nationalistic Christian period, when these people referred themselves as Suryoye/Suraye. In Germany, Assyrians, Arameans and Chaldeans are commonly referred as "Aramäer" (English: Arameans) yet German Wikipedia and many other Wikipedia language sites recognized the issue, fixed it by creating specific and independent articles based on the clashed topics to maintain its neutrality and credibility to readers: USING THE CORRECT TERMS in the CORRESPONDING ARTICLES. The terms Assyrians, Arameans and Chaldean are all used on German Wikipedia even on the modern peoples then redirected to the corresponding articles. WIKICOMMONNAME would only apply, if the overall topic matches perfectly without being inconsistent. Muslims believe Jesus to be a prophet, not God, while Christians believe the opposite. Why not forcing both religions into a single article at the expense of one side? Start edit warrings on our own preference like Assyrian POV editors do. Removing and wrongfully label the suitable correct terms like Mugsalot suggest. This example explains the overall situation on English Wikipedia by forcing various OPPOSING topics into single articles.

--Optra2021 (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Admin Future Perfect at Sunrise applied rules to the Assyrian people article a few years ago in order to get rid of the Assyrian POV contributions and by wrongfully "keeping" Arameans into the same article. It didn't work out. The Assyrian people article went back to its old POV-driven form. Mugsalot was also involved back then from what I can read on the talk page. It is nice to see Mugsalot is "concerned" about academic sources, references and neutrality, involving himself in edit warrings with user H0llande (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamoun_Hanna_Haydo&action=history) yet didn't remove the Assyrian flag from the Assyrian people article, allegedly used by most people incl the Arameans without references, sources or surveys for such a bold claim.

Mugsalot changed and falsfied the original title from "Arameans and the Making of 'Assyrians'" to "Assyrians and the Making of 'Arameans'" written by Aramean politician Johny Messo. Another prove of Mugsalot's biased behavior. Johny Messo is head of World Council of Arameans (WCA). WCA represents the Aramean nation, and works with different organizations, e. g. United Nations (UN). Calling him an "Assyrian" redirected to the POV written Assyrian people article, while he wrote a book against the "Assyrian" terminology, clearly shows the ridiculous situation on English Wikipedia. On German Wikipedia, he would be called "Aramean", the correct terminology then redirected to the corresponding Arameans (present) article that focuses on the modern Arameans (identity, nationalism, ideology,... ).

See Mugsalot's editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johny_Messo&diff=935120057&oldid=908926034

--Optra2021 (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: The post above, by Optra2021, was intended to ping you, but the link to you was broken, so I'm re-pinging since just fixing the link won't do that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Repeating that I don't want to wade into the long-term interpersonal venting that's been going on here, I do agree that a people/ethnicity and a former geographic empire are not the same thing. We need to be clear in distinguishing such topics. However, even defining what is meant by "ethnicity", "ethnic group", "a people", etc., can be difficult, as these terms mean different things to different people in different contexts (I touch on this some at WP:Race and ethnicity, though the main thrust of that is avoidance of racialist thinking and labeling in bios). I think the short but generalized answer is to be as consistent in this with other articles as we can. There are many other complex cases (What is a "Jew"? What does "British" mean?) with answers that can vary by focus (cultural, genetic, political, historical, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support separate articles for ancient and modern peoples. GPinkerton (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @GPinkerton: In a similar approach to German Wikipedia, right? Separating ancient Assyrians and Arameans from modern Assyrians and Arameans. Renaming the current Assyrian people article into Assyrians (present), creating an Arameans (present) article, both articles focusing on each modern groups distinct identity, ideology, history, nationalism etc, while leaving Arameans and Assyrians solely to the ancient people. Pro-contra Assyrian or pro-contra Aramean academic sources will be finally accommodated from a neutral point of view into specific and independent articles without mixing topics or favoring any political idea, e. g. an Assyrian nation incl Arameans according to Assyrianism supporterd by sources A and B vs. an Aramean nation incl Assyrians according Arameanism supported by sources C and D. Using the correct terminologies according to the topic will be finally restored and end this ongoing problem on English Wikipedia like on German Wikipedia and many other language sites, e. g [Assyrians (present)|Assyrian] author Rosie Malek-Yonan or [Arameans (present)|Aramean]] politician Johny Messo. Though this will need a lot of work to get rid of the POV editings from the past. Administrative monitoring by a group of neutral admins and Wikipedians will be required. --Optra2021 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Optra2021: You are not comparing like and like between modern Arameans/Assyrians and south Slavic peoples. The former is accepted as a single ethnic group by academia, as I have already demonstrated at the beginning of this RFC, and by sovereign states, most notably by the US ([3] note Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac), whilst the latter is recognised as only a linguistic group. It would be misleading to separate modern Arameans and Assyrians into two articles, when it is obvious they are the same ethnic group. If there are issues with the Assyrian people article favouring any particular identity, that can be resolved and does not require a separate article to remedy. I agree on removing ancient Assyrian history from the Assyrian people article, but there are already articles that content can be moved to.

I understand in Germany that "Aramean" is now the most common term to refer to this ethnic group, however, in English, it is still "Assyrian", as I have demonstrated, and thus all identities must be handled together under the common name "Assyrian". Mugsalot (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"The former is accepted as a single ethnic group by academia" Academia is devided by calling this single group either "Assyrians" or "Arameans" as a GENERIC TERM similar to the term "Arab", which functions as a collective term for various Arabic-speaking groups such as Mhallami, Syrians, Lebanese etc.. These generic terms (Assyrians & Arameans) are highly disputed and controversial, because they suggest different theories of origin, since ancient Assyrians and Arameans used to be two distinctive nations unlike modern Assyrians and Arameans, especially Assyrians and Arameans within the Syriac-Orthodox community. Therefore, using the "Assyrian" terminology based on WIKICOMMONNAME would be wrong, because it favorises the pro-Assyrian generic term academic side and its controversial theory, while devaluet and disregard the contra-Assyrian, but pro-Aramean generic term academic side and its theory thus English Wikipedia is losing its credibility and neutrality as an encyclopedia, leading to numerous Assyrian POV editings or edit warrings on this platform. Dutch Wikipedias answer to the discrepancy among academia was simply by creating a "nameconflict" article similar to Terms for Syriac Christians. The current Assyrian people article is mixing Assyrian nationalism, ancient Assyrians, Assyrian identity, Assyrian ideology, pro-Assyrian academic sources in line with Assyrian propaganda. To include Aramean related topics (identity, nationalism, ideology,...) into an article titled as "Assyrian people", wouldn't be specified and misleading readers. This is why I gave the example with Muslims believing Jesus not to be god, while Christians believe the opposite. Conflicting topics shouldn't be dealt in a single article. While a generic-term obviously doesn't exist in academia due to disagreements among scholars, however, Assyrian and Aramean national movements exist hence specific and independent articles about the modern people.

--Optra2021 (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

If it's correct that "Assyrian" remains the WP:COMMONNAME in English for what de.wp calls "Arameans" as a current ethnic label, then it is not correct that 'all identities must be handled together under the common name "Assyrian"' if that assertion means commingle them into the same article. Rather, we have a case where WP:Disambiguation is required. There are plenty of comparable prior cases like this, e.g. "Albania[n]" has meant several different things in different eras and places, and they are not all directly connected with each other (it's just a naming coincidence), while some of them are direct historical continuities that involve a polity, an ethnicity/people, a specific area, a language, or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Optra2021: You have provided no evidence that academia is divided on a common term, I have shown you the evidence, you are just going to have to accept it. And that is not an invitation for you to copy and paste the same garbled evidence you continue to regurgitate, which has very clearly been misinterpreted for your own POV.

@SMcCandlish: I disagree. WP:Disambiguation would only apply to the separation of ancient and modern Assyrian and Aramean content as academia agrees they are only related by name. However, the modern "Assyrian" and "Aramean" identities are recognised as a single ethnic group as I have demonstrated earlier with the common name "Assyrian", and are directly connected to one another. No single academic, sovereign state, nor Assyrian/Aramean organisation separates these identities as Optra2021 advocates. Mugsalot (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other. If the RS overwhelmingly demonstrate that Assyrian and Aramean in these specific contextual meanings are directly synonymous (like Irish and Hibernian), then yes they should be covered in the same article, but it will need disambiguation from all other uses of both terms. However, there is no Wikipedia principle that has anything to do with ethnic genetics. If these topics are distinct for any reason (cultural, linguistic, geographical, political, etc.), then they'll usually need to be separate articles that just make it clear that they are closely related and sometimes confused. Depending on how much information and complexity there is, sometimes there needs to be three articles (a general WP:SUMMARY, and WP:SPINOFFs that cover the two+ closely related groups separately. To pick a very broad example: Turkic peoples in general, versus Turkish people and Uyghurs. And note that Turk is a disambiguation page, because we also have to distinguish the Turkish-people ethnic group from citizens of Turkey, etc. While this example is about very large groups of people, the principles are the same (and would be the same if we were talking about elements of a novel, game, and film franchise, or about a group of horse breeds, or about whatever).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 

Are you kidding me? How about stop reading sources that fit your POVs! You literally started the RFC-discussion with the same references that can be found on other threads to constantly underpin the same narrative, which obviously don't work anymore. Accept it!

Sebastian Brock, "An introduction to Syriac Studies", page 68:"With the conjecture of some nineteenth century archaeologists and missionaries that the modern Christian population of northern Iraq are the descendants of the ancient Assyrians. This was taken up especially among people of the Church of the East" On page 67 it says:"Various alternatives have been adopted, including (by the more secular minded) 'Assyrian' which has caused considerable controversy (and trouble in some countries); a better choice would seem to be 'Aramean'."

READ the description of the book!"...Some scholars have doubted or denied the continuity of the Assyrian people...and demonstrates the continuous existence of the Assyrian people..." https://www.google.de/search?q=george+v+yana&prmd=imnv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaqfL-8svrAhWR_aQKHepiBAgQ_AUoAXoECBIQAQ&biw=412&bih=683&dpr=2.63#imgrc=GdiwOeOpmePSqM

"...the Aramean/Syriac people from the ancient times, through to the modern day." https://books.google.de/books?id=fVcsswEACAAJ&dq=arman+akopian+syriac+Arameans&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0hOHj9svrAhWLzaQKHdIwDCIQ6AEwAHoECAQQAQ

Watch the interview "The Aramean [Syriac] identity by professor Arman Akopian" discussing the Syriac, Assyrian and Aramean terms, while he favors the Aramean term on YouTube thus in contrast to pro-Assyrian scholars such as Simon Parpola. A common name doesn't exist in academia due to disagreements and proves my statement, why WIKICOMMONNAME can't applied.--Optra2021 (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, as a lecturer in Oxford University the Arameans should keep their site, and gets equal rights in any page which is about Arameans. Pitifully, the User @Mugsalot isn’t accepting that, he don’t accept that Aramean people have the right to be accepted and mentioned in Wikipedia Pages. His reason is POV, but I think the biggest vandalism is coming from him, by discriminating the Arameans by unequal treatment.

An Administrator should check this case. Drmartinbey (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "rights" of groups of people, and no page on here is "their site" (for any imaginable "they"). Nor does this discussion have anything whatsoever to do with any subject somehow not being "accepted and mentioned in Wikipedia". This is entirely about where to do so (under what page title(s), and whether or not mingled in with related but possibly encyclopedically distinct topics). Please actually pay at least a little attention to a discussion before jumping into it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: In plain terms, I think we agree ancient and modern should be separated from one another. In regard to the modern people, I would say that "Assyrians" and "Arameans" share enough similarities to constitute a single article together, including their geography, language, religion, and history. Any cultural differences between "Arameans" and "Assyrians" are better understood as regional differences within a single whole, similarly to southerners, northerners, Londoners etc in England, none of which have their own article.

@Optra2021: If you're going to contribute rubbish to this discussion you may as well just leave now. In a single stroke you have summarised your poor grasp of this discussion, and of academic discussion in general. You offer a YouTube video, a google search link to the blurb of a book, and the description of a book. Equally, you still struggle to understand Wikipedia formatting, and make a mess of this discussion.

@Drmartinbey: In my opinion, I don't think that you are a lecturer at Oxford University, on the basis of your poor English, your poor edits, and largely because you're not counted amongst their staff [4]. Mugsalot (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You only gave Information about the people to be one ethnic group, referencing non-academic websites using the "Assyrian" term, but at the same time you claimed "Assyrian" to be the commonly ACCEPTED generic term in academia to describe these people as a whole ethnic group, ignoring S.Brocks quote I provided and other academics quotes e. g. by J.Cooper in another post, regarding the Assyrian terminology and its controversial theory behind it with modern Assyrians being descendants of the ancient Assyrians thus Sebastian Brock and other academic works such by Arman Akopian do not use the Assyrian terminology to describe the group as a whole, but as Arameans. The description of the book written by George V Yana perfectly reflects the dispute "Some scholars have doubted or denied the continuity... ." If you claim "Assyrian" terminology to be commonly accepted in academia with Sebastian Brock and other academics being a "minority" vs pro-Assyrian theory scholars using the "Assyrian" terminology, then you MUST at least provide evidences by giving trustworthy surveys regarding how many academics prefer the "Assyrian" terminology over the "Aramean" terminology in their works. Good luck! You obviously can't and aren't objective and neutral in the sense of Wikipedia, thus heavily relying on WIKICOMMONNAME. You are the one, who should leave the discussion then!

Also, claiming user @Drmartinbey: not to be a lecturer, because of his "poor" English according to you is absolutely racist and shouldn't be tolerated. You devalueted him! Judging by his name, he could be of German descent living and working in the UK. The page shows a multiracial stuff from all over the world working at the university. I highly doubt they all speak perfect native like English. Perhaps the website is not up-to-date or he works at the university only for a short period of time!? Who knows.--Optra2021 (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Outdenting again, since this another multi-party reply: @Mugsalot: This needs to be subject to further discussion among other editors (especially as to the second point, on treating modern Arameans and Assyrians together in the same article; we already routinely separate ancient and modern people/nation articles, e.g. Ancient Greece and Greek people). Unfortunately, this "RfC" is completely shot because of the text-wall invective of primarily two editors (WP:BLUDGEON). This should likely to re-opened as another RfC, with a studiously neutral question, a "Comments" subsection for !votes, and an "Extended discussion" subsection for longer arguments, at the bottom. Per WP:REFACTOR, any respondent can move blathery back-and-forth to the latter section. For my part, I'm skeptical the modern-people topics should be merged into one article, but "the jury is still out" on that, and the current discussion is too degraded to settle the question. You and Optra2021 have spent so much time yelling at each other that no one has the time to wade through this all. Optra2021 at least in theory has a good point: if the claim is that academic and similar high-quality sources treat the terms (in the modern context) as synonymous, then we need a bunch of those kinds of sources saying so. That cuts both ways; a claim that they're entirely distinct in one more ways also needs high-quality sourcing. (I have not yet pored in detail over the two competing sets of sources you've both been relying on).

On Drmartinbey, I have WP:MEATPUPPET or even WP:SOCKPUPPET concerns. The editor has only been here a few days, but headed directly for a particular party's userspace, and has done nothing on WP but edit (using insider WP jargon in their edit summaries, so not likely an actual new editor) in this discussion and at a small handful of articles all in a tight topical group. I remain skeptical. English-language skills aside, the failure to logically grasp even the basic points being made in this discussion, and instead mistaking it for an attempt to remove all information about a group from Wikipedia (which no one proposed or would have proposed), argues strongly against this being a subject-matter expert from a prestigious university. But even if he is, and the Oxford faculty list is outdated, that doesn't mean Bey automatically "wins" or that we take his word for it when claiming alleged facts (especially since Bey's primary purpose in this discussion has been personalized invective against another party). Regardless of intent, no editor is a source. This attempt at argument to authority (with Bey implying he is the authority) is fallacious. WP is not credentialist.

To all involved: You either have the sources to back up what you're claiming (and better sources than competing views) or you don't. If both sides have great sources, then we have a conflict between presumptively reliable sources, and our encyclopedic job is to neutrally document that conflict, not pick a side in it. That kind of scenario (which is where we actually seem to be stuck for now) would likely conclude with separate articles and disambiguation by default, since the idea that two differently named notable groups of people are distinct encyclopedia subjects is the less extraordinary claim, compared to the idea they are synonymous or so close to it that a split would be a WP:POVFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Just want to add my two cents here, as I have been involved in these discussions here for over ten years now. Some bullets:

• I am not sure if it has been brought up (the sheer amount of text makes it somewhat difficult to navigate), but similar forks have been created throughout the year (separate ones though (called "Syriac people" or "Syriac-Aramean people"), not in this ancient people article), where the decision (per WP:POVFORK) has been to merge the article under a common name.
• I see that some editors in favor of a fork are arguing that these would be different nations, which is ridiculous. I get the fact that ancient Assyrians and Arameans were to separate groups, which however is not true for this modern people. Remember that both groups (or at least their major organizations) all agree that this is one and the same people. An example is the Syriac-Aramean federation in Sweden (note that Sweden and Germany is where most people identifying as Syriac-Aramean are found), who are including all church demonotions as Syriac-Aramean. This is not "Assyrian ideology". The fact that the Assyrian identity is the only one found among all church demonotions is something completely different. People are ignoring the fact that the (West-)Assyrian and Aramean "fractions" usually divides families, thus talking about regional differences is not correct either, it is on a much more granular level.
• Other editors argues that there should be "equal rights" and "topic separation improvement". I want to highlight that the article "Terms for Syriac Christians" do exist (earlier called "Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean naming dispute"), elaborating on the different identities.
• German and Dutch Wikipedia are mentioned above. I do not see how that should be any "guidance" for how English Wikipedia should be structured. Also, why is Swedish Wikipedia not brought up in the same discussion? There is only one article for the modern group in Swedish Wikipedia, which could be one reason why edit warring has been close to non-existent over the past years. What is not highligthed correct in the discussion above regarding German Wikipedia is that a third article, this one, has been created due to the problem mentioned in the bullet just below. This articles is not corresponding to the Terms for Syriac Christians as mentioned by an editor above, but rather to battle the problem of two different articles. Take a look at the German article for the genocide. Good example of how awful the solution of two, or even three separate articles, is.
• @SMcCandlish: It might not be obvious to a Wikipedian new to the topic why this is a fork. But the complexity and difficulties that would arise with two different ethnic articles would be major and would lead to edit warring in all related articles. For example, this articles is currently referrring to Sootoro as an Aramean militia and Suroyo TV as an Aramean TV channel. But really nothing makes either more "Assyrian", "Syriac" or "Aramean". This apply to hundered of other articles related to the Syriac Orthodox group. This is definitely the biggest concern to me.
• Note that a modern "Aramean people" article would have content describing nothing else that the history of one part of the adherents of the Syriac Orthodox Church, where the people identifying as "West-Assyrian", "Syriac", and/or "Aramean" are found.
• Ridiculous claiming that there is not a corresponding ancient Assyrian people article. The content in Assyria is not much different to the type on content, earlier, found in Arameans.
• Syriacs, Chaldeans, and/or Arameans are and should not be treated as sub-groups in the Assyrian people article - but as alternative names, in an articles following WP:COMMONNAME.

Renaming the main article would in all cases be a better option than two separate ones. Shmayo (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that detailed analysis. I agree with the principles outlined in it, as long as the sourcing overwhelmingly agrees. I'm not "anti-merge"; I regularly propose articles for merger. But I'm very aware of coatracking and PoV problems, especially in topics pertaining to the Middle East, and to ethnic groups (doubly so when these two categories intersect). E.g., I even had to seek administrative action about the Van cat article because of editwarring there over whether Turks, Kurds, or Armenians had a proper "cultural claim" to the cats. There is no end to what people will fight over. You echo my general concern when you say "the sheer amount of text makes it somewhat difficult to navigate". This is why I've suggested starting with a fresh, neutrally written RfC asking a very clear question and divided into a !voting section and an extended discussion section, with back-and-forth in the former being refactored into the latter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: On "If both sides have great sources, then we have a conflict between presumptively reliable sources, and our encyclopedic job is to neutrally document that conflict, not pick a side in it.":

What sides are we talking about here? Which reliable sources mentioned above are supporting the idea of different nations? The sources advocating an Aramean name for the people are not doing that. Let us not forget that. Shmayo (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I was writing in a generality sense; to answer that question is to wade through primarily two editors' back and forth and dig into the sources each prefers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Just for your information that Drmartinbey was blocked on de.WP some days ago. It is a succession account of Suryoyutho, which was blocked because of permanent disrespect for NPOV. --Arabsalam (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Further proving that the statement "there is no edit warring" on German Wikipedia is bogus. These 1 2 are exactly the types of edits I am referring to in my text above. That will be the result of two separate articles. And not to forget that we open up for separate articles for Aramean genocide, Chaldean genocide, Aramean diaspora, etc. - which are obvious forks... Shmayo (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Procedurally, that's wrong. Sockpuppetry by banned users is not counted as editwarring/controversy/dispute, since their input has been rejected by the community as unconstructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Got it! However, it's still true. 1 2 3 4 - a couple of examples. Shmayo (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Support title change If I remember correctly, the original title name was called "Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriac people", but later on changed to "Assyrian people" based on WIKICOMMONNAME, and its content changed completely into Assyrian POVs. An "Assyrian/Aramean/Chaldean people" article title would be the best solution, also reflecting each modern groups identity and national movements equally from a neutral point of view, yet being of the same ethnic stock without arguing on a disputed generic-term in academia. Persons such as Johny Messo or Rosie Malek-Yonan should be still called Aramean or Assyrian in their articles as long as references about their identity are given, but redirected to the modern Assyrian/Aramean/Chaldean people article. The example with Johny Messo who wrote a book against the "Assyrian" terminology (identity, nationalism, ideology, etc), but still called an "Assyrian" on English Wikipedia and then redirected to an Assyrian POV written article demonstrated English Wikipedia's lack of neutrality and objectivity, which hopefully will be fixed.-Optra2021 (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Optra2021: If you would like to discuss the merits of changing the name of the Assyrian people article, I would suggest opening an WP:RM on that article's talk page, as this isn't the place for that. In the meantime, however, you do acknowledge that they're the same people, and that they can be handled in a single article, if done in a NPOV manner. I would suggest moving the modern content from this article to the Assyrian people article so to balance "Assyrian" and "Aramean" content there, and this article will go back to only detailing ancient history. Mugsalot (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mugsalot: If the current "Assyrian people" article title changes into something like on Swedish Wikipedia and its overall content is written from a neutral point of view without favoring any academic sources, national idea etc, then the Arameans article can go back focusing on the ancient Arameans only. We wouldn't have to follow the German or Dutch approach by separating it into modern people articles. An "Assyrian/Aramean/Chaldean people" article title better reflects NPOVs and can accommodate Aramean related topics, sources etc using the Aramean terminology in such an article without confusing readers.--Optra2021 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

As a technical note, we would not use slashes for this purpose, but en dashes, and they should probably be in alphabetical order: Aramean–Assyrian–Chaldean people. However, it is abnormal for a Wikipedia article title to include synonyms. We have WP:COMMONNAME policy for a reason. PS: This kind of issue may be what inspired nl.wikipedia to create an article on the naming dispute itself. I still don't think that's a good idea. That's much better as a section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Maybe this explains, why German Wikipedia has multiple articles as well, instead of a single one. I am not sure for articles written about nations, but within automobile articles on Wikipedia, you mostly choose the title name based on the original model or car maker, not on WIKICOMMONNAME.

See differences between Opel Astra being the main article vs. Vauxhall Astra as an example. The content is not 100% the same:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Astra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_Astra

The first generation Buick Encore was exactly the same as the first generation Opel Mokka, while Buick Encore was redirected to the Opel article. Now from the second generation onwards, the content differs thus creating an independent Buick Encore article.

Regarding the Aramean article, it would be possible to write briefly about the same content as the "Assyrian people" article in some sections, while the corresponding sections on the Assyrian people article are the main ones, e. g. "dances" or "music". But you can already tell from some editings on the Arameans article that it is neither 100% the same content nor follows 100% the same scheme as the Assyrian people article due to the discrepancy about the nameconflict and its belonging ideology, identity, academic sources etc., e. g. the Assyrian people article says:"...indigenous to Mesopotamia", while the Arameans article says:"...indigenous to the Levant and Mesopotamia" or e. g. the sentence found on the Assyrian people article:"...modern Assyrians are Syriac Christians who claim descent from Assyria", which is not claimed by Arameans or pro-Aramean scholary and is clearly Assyrian POV unless Arameans are not included in the Assyrian people article, then this statement fits the overall scheme what the title suggests to readers, namely about "Assyrians". Perhaps we should wait and see how the Arameans article content (references, sources etc, which were removed, vandalized, falsfied etc. in the past) develops over the next few weeks before making any judgments. I already pointed out the Maronites and Chaldean Catholics articles. Or why aren't Mhallamis redirected to the Arab article? "I still don't think that's a good idea. That's much better as a section.", which could be used in both articles or either one as a section. But this will require NPOV editors or written from both sides to be balanced, while a group of admins check it.--Optra2021 (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Optra2021: I'm going to restore the Arameans article as to how it was previously with only ancient content now that there's some agreement that all modern content should be at Assyrian people. As I have said, if you feel strongly that the Assyrian people article should be renamed, I would again suggest you request it be moved on the Assyrian people talk page. I would also encourage you to add Aramean content to the Assyrian people article. To be frank, the current state of the Arameans article is appalling, with dozens of bare urls with no formatting or page numbers etc, and long quotes from books over a century old. Mugsalot (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

No, unless you want to provoke an edit warring again! Read what @SMcCandlish: responded regarding a title change! The title change should be first discussed on the Assyrian people article and a possible revision of the overall content before doing any action on the Arameans article or accommodating its content to the Assyrian people article. A title change was already discussed on the Assyrian people article's talk page in the past, with POV editors being clearly against it on the same narrative what happened at the beginning of this RFC-discussion!

@SMcCandlish: I see you as a neutral user who followed this discussion from the beginning. Could you or any other administrator close this RFC-discussion by reviewing it and make a final decision? A consensus about a solution will probably never reached with involved POV editors such as Mugsalot or personally affected editors such as Shmayo who happens to be an Assyrian Wikipedian with some dubious edits in the past. Many thanks in advance.--Optra2021 (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Optra2021: SMcCandlish isn't an administrator, and even if he was, that's not how RFCs work.

A solution was reached years ago with the use of the common name "Assyrian", and even due to technicality a compromise name isn't possible. The issue you have is with the content of the Assyrian people article, and yet you have done nothing about it. You have said the article is written from the perspective of Assyrian nationalism, and yet you have done nothing to remedy it. If you want something done properly, do it yourself. Mugsalot (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Pardon? I did nothing? See the following links. I won't risk to be involved in edit warrings or my account getting blocked because of wrong accuses. Admin Future Perfect preferenced the Assyrian term back then, but his applied rules to "prevent" edit warrings were completely ignored by others and admins, so much for him blocking POV editors from both sides, when he in fact gave Assyrian POV editors freepass to continue their work on English Wikipedia over the years. Now anyone trying to remove Assyrian POV content is getting blocked. The use of "Assyrian" common name was based on wrong assumptions such as academic widely accepted terminology or the content and overall scheme, e. g. Assyrian and Aramean identity are literally 100% and overlap, which obviously isn't the case (See the examples I gave within automobiles). I am still waiting for you providing evidence "Assyrian" is the widely accepted terminology in academia to be the generic term. My problem is not with most of the content of the Assyrian people article, but the title itself by including the Arameans in it and misleading or confusing readers, why e. g. an article title which is supposed to be about the Assyrians is predominantly talking about Assyrians being descendants of the Arameans or Aramean identity in the history section. The current main focus of the pre-Christian period is soley about the ancient infamous Assyrians according to pro-Assyrian academic sources and Assyrian POV editings. The "Assyrian" title suggests what the overall article is all about...namely Assyrians incl main focus on Assyrian identity, Assyrian nationalism etc, not Arameans. By no mean it is possible to balance content from both sides to be neutral or objective by personally affected or biased editors. The Assyrian people article would get even more screwed up. @SMcCandlish: was right when he gave the Turkic people example and should consider separate articles. [5] [6]--Optra2021 (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You tried to remove the Assyrian flag once, I would hardly consider that a serious effort, or even an actual attempt at removing POV. The solution would be to depict all three flags, not have no flags whatsoever. The ancient history section can be removed from the Assyrian people article to prevent an emphasis on only Assyrian claims of descent, as obviously they all claim to be descended from some ancient civilisation, plus there's a whole article detailing this debate, so it would be best to not favour any particular side. I had provided several encyclopedias that demonstrate that Assyrian is the most common term, but I'll do it again because you clearly missed that. The evidence you have provided in the past details very specific academic subjects, and does not reflect discussion of the ethnic group overall, as these encyclopedias do, who use the term Assyrian to discuss all identities, including Arameans, Syriacs, and Chaldeans. Truthfully, I think the Assyrian people article simply needs to be redone completely for everyone to be happy, and I'm happy to do that. Mugsalot (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop cherry-picking sources that use the "Assyrian" term to fit your POVs! You still haven´t provided evidences that "Assyrian" is the commonly accepted GENERIC TERM in academia by giving surveys etc, when it is in fact disputed!--Optra2021 (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Supporting a split and then supporting a merge based on a specific criteria is a bit weird. The consensus seems to be that we are all referring to the same nation. A decision on the main article name should be discussed on that talk page. However, the decision here should not be dependent on the outcome. That is not how Wikipedia works. @Optra2021: I am quite sure that you misunderstood SMcCandlish's technical note. Also, please see the first bullet of my first post above. Shmayo (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Also on the main article - "...and its content changed completely into Assyrian POV" - is not a true claim. The article has basically looked the same for a very long time. We are all free to contribute to its improvement. Shmayo (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

To catch up a bit: My Turkic example is just an example of one way to do this, and is not always the best model. I don't want to be seen as insisting on it. There's still a lot under discussion about sources, and potential confusion or perceptions of biases, and what previous admin action was intended to do, and etc. I've tried to mediate a bit, but this seems like it needs to just ramble its way along further until some clearer proposals and rationales for them emerge, and are subjected to a clearer RfC. PS: No, I can't properly close this RfC, being a participant in it. It need not necessarily be closed by an admin, but it should be by someone not directly involved in the discussion. Well, not closed with a firm result; it might properly be closed by any of us, as simply not productive. Then follow it up with more focused discussions to try to resolve some particular questions one at time? I hope this does not just turn into a circular argument that is still going in a year. Or even a month.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I was pretty surprised the Arameans did not have a page about their ethnicity. I even checked twice if I did not misspell the name, after I did take a look on the talkpage and saw this ongoing RFC. I have a wide knowledge of Middle Eastern minorities and I can confirm that the Assyrians and Arameans do not consider themselves as the same ethnic group. Not in the Middle East nor in their diaspora. It’s true that there are Assyrians and Arameans who are trying to unite the nation under one name or work together to stand stronger and have more possibilities when they bundle their powers, but that does not mean that they need to be included in one page. I also see that this RFC is going on for a long time so I ask all of the above editors (( user:SMcCandlish, user:Mugsalot, user:Dutchy45, user:Optra2021, user:GPinkerton and others if I forgot to mention them)) to tell their opinion on this page, so we can close this RFC. In the arguments above there are already several arguments given with sources why the Arameans should have a page about their ethnicity and that’s enough to decide that they do indeed need to have an own page. Velonici (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I think most of the participants have said all they need to, several times over. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support separation of ancient vs. modern. Query: where to draw the line? Does the scholarship suggest a division period? P.S. this RFC is very long and wordy to read WP:WALLOFTEXTish. Perhaps consider separate sections for !vote vs. discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I indeed also support a seperation of ancient and modern just like user:SMcCandlish, user:Optra2021 and user:GPinkerton also stated. This RFC indeed took way too long and there is too much written. Does an admin need to draw a line and take a decision or how exactly will the decision be made, User:Elizium23? Velonici (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

    If you think a clear consensus can be drawn from all this rambling, you can ask WP:ANRFC for formal closure by an uninvolved admin. It has a backlog, so be patient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

    User:SMcCandlish, I do think it’s clear that consensus is reached. I globally read the text above and only see one person being against it, and that’s also the person that was the cause of this RFC. Could you please ask for a formal closure for this RFC? I’m new to Wikipedia so I’m actually still trying to discover how everything works and I didn’t really get it, thanks in advance!!Velonici (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

    Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Reflist
References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about seperation pages about modern/ancient Aramean nation

Should there be made a seperation in pages between the ancient and modern Arameans? There already are two different Wikidata links, one about the modern people and one about the ancient people. Even tho, the English Wikipedia only has the current article about the ancient Aramean nation without paying any attention to the modern group. Velonici (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Modern people that identify as Aramean are treated on Assyrian people, as they are widely accepted as the same ethnic group. For evidence, see my posts here and here. Any entertainment of the idea that Arameans are a distinct ethnic group and should have their own page is to promote a fringe theory contrary to the opinions of academia and governments. Mugsalot (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I have done voluntary work in the Middle East and mentioned that there is difference between these groups. There is no part on Assyrian people zooming in on Aramean history, sports or any cultural organizations. Also from what I experienced these groups do not identify as the same nation themselves so it’s totally wrong to use an umbrella term as Assyrian for this group. Also using a term as Assyrian-Aramean-Chaldean people as a new title for this group would result into a page with too much information what also will result in ambiguity. That’s why I think a seperation of these pages is actually a must. Velonici (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Velonici, if you would like to discuss the Assyrian people article, do so on its talk page, not here. Your experiences are wholly irrelevant. If you fail to provide sources, then your opinion is equally worthless. I have provided countless sources that they are the same ethnic group time and time again. I'm not going to have this conversation for the millionth time, this article is for the ancient people, and Assyrian people is for the modern people. Mugsalot (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I stated why it’s not a smart idea to change the content of that page. I see that in previous RFC’s sources were provided that claimed the opposite of what you are claiming. I ask you again what I wrote above. You keep repeating yourself. But your opinion is clear. To make this RFC not too long I think it’s better to wait for other reactions. Velonici (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Areal?

" ...speaking areal of Aramaic language was also widened [...] a wider Aramaic-speaking areal was created..." You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means. It is not just a fancy way of saying "area." Farewell, Randolph Carter, and beware - FOR I AM NYARLATHOTEP, THE CRAWLING CHAOS!! 07:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyokoMocha (talk • contribs)

Content dispute on 25 May 2021

@Mugsalot and Reldex: Please discuss the content dispute/edit war here. You have both violated the 3RR, and the article has been fully protected. dudhhr_Contribs 20:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Dudhhr, the article was fully protected at my request, and Reldex has been temporarily banned after I had repeatedly warned him to discuss his edits on the talk page. That version is ridiculously poorly written and sourced, and rests solely on the bias of a number of German and Dutch pro-Aramean users, in which countries the term "Aramean" is more popular than "Assyrian" in contrast to English-speaking countries, from which this dispute stems. The modern people that identify as "Aramean" is covered on the Assyrian people article, not here. The version restored by Reldex and IPs was initially added and defended by several sockpuppets, and does not deserve to be discussed again. Mugsalot (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mugsalot: consider the dispute done. bye. dudhhr_Contribs 21:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Arabs did not conquer the Kingdom of Aram

The Muslim Arabs never conquered the Kingdom of Aram. Rather, they conquered the Arab Kingdom of Ghassanids, which was allied with the Byzantines, kingdom of aram was fall by assyrians and latter syria ruled by achmead. the article should fixed Samlaxcs (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Content dispute

As far as I know this page already contained information about the modern Aramean people? I have added more reliable and academic sources to the article and Sorabino has added a lot of sources information to the page as well. So I quite don't get why there needs to be consensus about a page that already included the same content as before, just with more spefific information. Also you refer to a ridiculously biased, poorly written and sourced edit, what do you exactly mean by that? The sources in the text are valid and I have added new sources to the page recently which substantiate the text even more. So my question to you Mugsalot is: what is the actual reason you keep reverting the edit? Is it because according to you it's poorly written and soured or are there any other reasons why you are against it? Reldex (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have also reverted your earlier edits here. The version you're referring to is a WP:CFORK created by earlier blocked socks. The article, which is about ancient Arameans, mentioning a modern Aramean identity is not a reason to restore such a fork. And I think that you're fully capable of understanding that. See earlier RfC discussions. There's a lot worth reading on Talk:Assyrian people as well. Shmayo (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I had reverted, re-edited and added new sources to the page, so there was totally nothing wrong with it! As I stated again I have added more information about the modern people and the page did already include information about the modern nation. I have only added more specific and detailled information to it, could you Mugsalot & Shmayo be more specific about what isn't right about that? Because I am about to start a RFC to revert the page back if we don't reach consensus on this talkpage. Reldex (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that I was pretty clear above. You do understand that you cannot ignore the discussions right above, which is what you are doing by just restoring a fork. You will have to address those points. Shmayo (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Shmayo, I think I'm pretty clear as well, it is worthy to mention that the only ones opposing the previous RFC's were you and Mugsalot. Also both users who are involved in removing the Aramean and Chaldean term on several pages here on Wikipedia. I have a question for you and hope that you can answer it clearly, if not I will open another RFC.

• Is there an OVERALL CONSENSUS by scholars that the modern Arameans and Assyrians are the same people? YES/NO? If NO, than there are clearly seperated pages needed. If YES, there are also seperated pages needed, because as mentioned before these groups have a different historical background, different names for their country, speak different dialects of Aramaic and don't share the exact same culture, also to mention that each of these groups are being represented apart from eachother politically. Reldex (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Most of that is neither true or relevant. Shmayo (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC about the information of the page

Should the page include information about the modern Arameans? Reldex (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Support, Currently there are 2 users regarding this article who are continously opposing the page to include information about the modern Arameans, what is noteworthy here is to mention that both of these users also remove the Aramean term on other pages and there is a possibility that they are having a POV nationalistic ideology which they are pushing through Wikipedia. They refuse a page about the modern Arameans, because according to them the Arameans and Assyrians are the same people this has everything to do with a nationalistic ideology which has no place on Wikipedia. However to add that there is no overall consensus on this topic by scholars that they are the same group and also to mention that both groups have a seperate history, separate language, separate flags, separate political organizations who represent them. Reldex (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but how do you figure that "Assyrian" is nationalistic? There is no current nation state called Assyria and AFAIK there's not been a country with that name for millennia. Modern Assyrians are descended from the people of ancient Assyria; there's no irridentism that I'm aware of. AFAIK, Assyrians and Aranaians are the same people, and Assyrian is what they call themselves. Is that not correct? Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Firejuggler86 No, it's not correct. It's a result of see: Assyrian nationalism who consider all members of Syriac christianity as ethnic Assyrians, which is a nationalistic ideology. Ofcourse this it not correct and there is no consensus among this theme by scholars, that's why I mentioned it as a nationalistic ideology and that's also a reason that both nations need to have a seperate page about their culture, history etc. Reldex (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) Invalid RfC - The question is not phrased neutrally, but rather rhetorically. Should the page include information about the modern Arameans? Well yes is the obvious answer, but it is clear that the core discussions above are firstly whether modern Arameans actually exist as a distinct group (rather than as an alternative term largely adopted by parts of the diaspora relatively recently, or as a sub-group) and whether they do exist or not, how best to represent the distinct people or distinct terminology. Having waded through oceans of bad faith accusations above, Reldex, you do yourself no favours by spending most of your post above characterising those who don't agree with you negatively. While at the same time omitting to include - or point to - ANY sources, ANY arguments that support your position. Additionally, it is extremely vague to ask whether information should be included, when it seems part of the dispute is WHAT information, broadly, should be included. No RfC-er is going to want to help on this one. I suggest you close and get someone to frame a neutral question. There is already too much heat and not enough light on this page. Pincrete (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete, Well it was not my intention to characterise someone negatively, but it seemed like Assyrian nationalism. People who identify all members of Syriac Christianity as ethnic Assyrians, a theme without any consensus about it by scholars. The thing I don't understand is, the page already includes page about the modern Arameans, is a RFC even needed if more sourced information about the modern people will be added? Reldex (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

How exactly is the topic NOT covered by the "Legacy and modern Aramean identity" section and the related linked article. It seems a bit problematic to decide to either include or exclude material when there seems little (scholarly or editorial) agreement as to whether, and in what sense a modern people exists. Is this simply a different name for the same people? If that debate itself is the major feature of discussion, then it's presumptive to write as though that matter were resolved. Pincrete (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - General support for this. It would be normal in this instance, to include discussion of a modern peoples who have (at least some sort of) connection to these ancient people, even if they are only claimed connections. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding ‘Greek’ to Arameans is misinformation

Adding the ‘Greek’ language to the Arameans page is misinformation. Arameans still speak until today Aramaic which is there own language. Why do people add the Greek language to this page? In my opinion its unnecassary and confusing.

Second the word ‘Aramean’ is often written wrong on the page. I think its the best to write it all the same as ‘Aramean’ only and not as Aramaean or something else.. 181.41.15.176 (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The way Aramean and Aramaic language are spelled.

Aramean is spelled in different ways all over this page.

Please write Aramean only as Arameans and not as Aramaean or Aramæan or whatever.

The name of this nation is Arameans and the language is called Aramaic. 181.41.15.176 (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The ancient region of Aram

The ancient region of Aram is called both Aram and Aramea in this article.

I prefer to stick to Aram because that is the most common name and Aramea sounds more confusing with Armenia. 181.41.15.176 (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda of Assyrian nationalists on this page

I would like to ask if it’s possible to forbid changes from Assyrian nationalists on this page.

Within the Syriac/Aramean/Assyrian people there is a name conflict going on. The so called ‘Assyrian’ nationalists are manipulating all Syriac/Aramean sources and try to make it look in all ways that the right name for this nation is ‘Assyrian’ or that Arameans are ‘Assyrians’.

In all ways they try to manipulate the sources/information. Often they use biased sources that work in their favor to accomplish their goal (Assyrianizing Syriac/Aramean people). To add: often these sources are written by Assyrianistic nationalists theirselves.

With all due respect, I try to ask here if its possible to stop this manipulation and to forbid changes of moderator @mugsalot in example and other editors like shmayo and sharrukin.

Arameans/Syriacs are an ethnic group and have their language, history, church, identity, traditions/culture.

If there is a need for sources to proof this. We are willing to help/contribute. 89.205.137.123 (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a moderator and I have never claimed to be one. Mugsalot (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a possibility to forbid changes from Assyrian nationalists?

I would like to add that @Mugsalot is busy Assyrianizing the Aramean/Syriac name, people and it's history for a long time.

@Mugsalot you are not even responding on what's said.

It doesn't make a difference if @Mugsalot is a moderator or not. He doesn't allow Arameans/Syriacs to have their own page. In all languages there are separated pages for Arameans and Assyrians. It is crazy how often @Mugsalot changes the Aramean/Syriac name into Assyrian on pages and how often he reverts changes on the Aramean page.

We try to stop manipulation, propaganda and other information written by Assyrian (Assyrianists) on the Aramean page. So called Assyrians are very nationalistic and try to Assyrianize the Syriac/Aramean in every possible way.

Don't get us wrong but we want Assyrian nationalists to be forbidden to change or write information on this page.

I hope for some understanding. 93.238.83.149 (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I have decided to fill a report against Mygsalot and Shmayo breaking wikipedias rules. Hopefully this will get them banned. There is already proof in 'talk’ that have been made to Mygsalot and Shmayo without any positive development. 192.12.235.205 (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Aramaic speaking group

Arameans have an own language called ‘Aramaic’.

Why does it say in the introduction Semitic speaking instead of Aramaic speaking?

Is this Assyrian nationalists propaganda? @shmayo @mugsalot . Do Assyrian nationalists try to confuse or misinform people again?

Arameans are an Aramaic speaking ethnic group and nothing else. 93.238.81.20 (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Consequences closed RFC?

Hi all,

After the second RFC being closed there is consensus reached about that the status quo is inadequate in its presentation of overlapping and contentious terms for Arameans. Also there is rough consensus for splitting between the ancient usage and modern ethnoreligious groups, this means that the current page will be reverted back to a previous edit about the modern people and that a new page will be created about these people their history.

The same solution is used, on for example the German Wikipedia: ancient people: Aramäer (volk) [7] and the modern people Aramäer (Gegenwart) [8].

And also the French Wikipedia has the same solution: Araméens for the ancient people [9] and Araméens (chrétiens orientaux) for the modern people [10]

I would like to hear any thoughts on this proposal :)

Best regards & stay safe! Kikkererwtje (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: In the RFC above I already saw several users (user:SMcCandlish, user:Elizium23, user:Optra2021) and user:GPinkerton) supporting a separation of ancient vs. modern. I would recommend to draw the line from the period that the Arameans converted to christianity. So the page about their history will go deeper into B.C and the page about the modern people will mainly go about the people A.D like as in this edit [11] Kikkererwtje (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Kikkererwtje, you revert back to that steaming pile of shit edit that was created and supported by several vandals and sockpuppets, and I will immediately redirect your name to those sockpuppet investigations. I wish I had a quid for every time I've said it, but I'll say it again, Arameans are Assyrians, and they are treated on the Assyrian people article. Mugsalot (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Mugsalot, first of all I want to tell you: speak in a normal tone! The edit I am referring to was substantiated with sources and has been given a protection template by a moderator, despite the template you have rolled back the edit!

You are not the person to make decisions here. Your opinion is valued, but your opinion does not have to be the truth. The fact that you're pushing your thoughts is exactly what a POV is. In the whole RFC I saw you being the only one opposing the RFC, I'm doubting about your neutrality on this topic, especially when I look at your user contribution where you take away references to this people several times. Kikkererwtje (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not even engaging with you on this subject matter. You are a completely brand new user who has immediately championed this issue. I would not be surprised in the slightest if you were another vandal. And for those users who suspect I am overreacting, I would encourage them to look at the article history of Arameans and its talk page. I will happily reiterate myself: you restore that steaming pile of shit edit, and I will immediately redirect your name to those sockpuppet investigations. If you're a decent editor, then practise on your sandbox. Mugsalot (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to say the same to you actually :) You gave your opinion and that's fine, but I see that you're the main user here involving in these discussions with continiously giving the same arguments and opposing it as the only user. Once other users also recommend to revert the edit back than that's what will be done. Again you are not the one here who can decide by himself what happens here or not!Kikkererwtje (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the separation of ancient and modern people. This is the only way to solve the ongoing conflict.Velonici (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Velonici, modern Arameans are treated on Assyrian people. Mugsalot (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

user:Mugsalot in the RFC above there are several people who oppose that Arameans and Assyrians are the same nation. You can compare it with people from the Balkan, even tho they are ethnically the same people, they do have a different name and historyline. For example people who call themselves Arameans trace their descandance to the ancient Arameans. There is not any mentioning of the ancient Aramean heritage on the page Assyrian People and it’s not a smart idea to add information about the ancient Arameans to that page because it will cause confusion and it will be too much information for one page.Velonici (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Velonici, it's irrelevant what a number of vandals thought on the relationship between Arameans and Assyrians. I have proven time and time again that they are recognised as the same ethnic group by governments, academics, and organisations, pro-Aramean and pro-Assyrian alike. Frankly, if you want to discuss content on the Assyrian people article, you should be doing so on that article's talk page, not here. Mugsalot (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Mugsalot it actually is relevant. It’s not something that is mentioned for the first time. I see on this talk page that continuously over the past few years there is started a topic about a request for a page about these modern people. Please read again what I wrote above. You can compare it with the Balkan countries, who ethnically are the same but grew out different. Can you please substantiate it if you don’t agree with the Balkan-example. Velonici (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Assyrianists (Assyrians or Assyrian nationalists) do everything and literally everything (I wished that I was exaggerating but I am not) to Assyrianize the Aramean/Syriac people, language, identity, church and everything that is related. They will keep doing everything and if they could they would erase the Aramean name from the world. Arameans are not 'Assyrians'. The modern people are in origins the same but highly disagree about their origins. There is no unity within this nation. If 'Assyrians' want unity under one page they could switch their name to Syriac people as all of them identify in Aramaic/Syriac. Suryoyo/Suryaya/Suraya/Suroyo means Syriac. Unfortunately modern Assyrians care only about their Assyrian name. Assyrianists Assyrianized literally everything on wikipedia when it comes to the Aramean/Syriac/Chaldean/Assyrian nation. Even a blind can see that. Syriac563 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Assyrianization and vandalism of Aramean pages by Assyrian nationalists

Assyrianists (Assyrians or Assyrian nationalists) do everything and literally everything (I wished that I was exaggerating but I am not) to Assyrianize the Aramean/Syriac people, language, identity, church and everything that is related. They will keep doing everything they can to continue and if they could they would erase the Aramean name from the world. Arameans are not 'Assyrians'. The modern people are in origins the same but highly disagree about their origins. There is no unity within this nation. If 'Assyrians' want unity under one page they could switch their name to Syriac people as all of them identify in Aramaic/Syriac. Suryoyo/Suryaya/Suraya/Suroyo means Syriac. Unfortunately modern Assyrians care only about their Assyrian name. Assyrianists Assyrianized literally everything on wikipedia when it comes to the Aramean/Syriac/Chaldean/Assyrian nation. Even a blind can see that.

I would like to ask if it’s possible to forbid changes from Assyrian nationalists on this page. Arameans want a page for theirselves and want to be separated from Assyrians. If they don't mind the Aramean name as they say they can call our people (in alphabetical order) Arameans/Assyrians or Assyrians/Arameans. The governments use double terms too in countries. Sweden uses Assyrians/Syriacs, Germany Uses Arameans/Assyrians, Netherlands uses Arameans/Assyrians, USA uses: Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriacs, Iraq uses Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac.

We try to stop manipulation, propaganda and other information written by Assyrian nationalists (Assyrianists) on the Aramean page. So called Assyrians are very nationalistic and try to Assyrianize the Syriac/Aramean in every possible way. Often they use biased sources.

Don't get me wrong but I also want Assyrian nationalists to be forbidden to change or write information on this page. Syriac563 (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Language of the Arameans in the introduction

Arameans speak/spoke Aramaic. Why does the page say that Arameans are 'Semitic speaking' and not Aramaic speaking in the introduction?

Second: Why is Greek added in the introduction? I don't think it is important or necessary to add Greek in the introduction if Arameans have an own language called 'Aramaic'. Syriac563 (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Other denominations

Shouldn't this article also compose the whole Aramean populations and what they are termed? Im mostly thinking of Chaldeans and also Nestorians or ”Assyrians” as they have been refered to since the 20th century. 185.176.246.64 (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, all Aramean groups should be added. Nestorians and Chaldeans too. Problem is that the page is manipulated by Assyrian nationalists. It is totally written from an Assyrian nationalist POV. They don't want Arameans to gain any popularity in name. They try to make it look in all possible ways that the right name for Arameans/Syriacs is 'Assyrian' instead. Syriac563 (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

For those who are doubting about the Aramean-Syrian(c) terminology.

In the French dictionary under the name Aramean it gives the explanation of two names: Araméen and Syrie, syriaque.[1]

Another authoritative dictionary is the English one, under the name Aramean it gives a similar explaining, that is; Aramean and Syrian.[2]

In the Hebrew dictionary the word Aram gives us the impression of two names; Aram and Syrian (syriac)[3] Note: Search for the word Aramite/Aramean and Syrian.

By Biblical translations the word Syria gives the meaning of Aram. [4]

By the Catholic Encyclopedia the term ’’Syria’’ gives the meaning of ‘’Aram’’ and ‘’Arameans’’. [5]

In German litterateur; regarding their ”Semetic studies” the word ”Syria” and ”Syriac” is translated to ”Aram” and ”Aramean”. (Prof. Dietrich Hermann Hegewisch & Prof. Theodor Mommsen & Prof. Theodor Nöldeke & Prof. Karl Eduard Sachau)

Now moving on to different Syriac dictionaries, these are most important since they are in the Aramaic language itself. Lets start with Bar Bahlul († 963), he compiled his famous "Lexicon", a small encyclopedia in which he collected, together with the lexicographical works of his predecessors. He wrote in his lexicon under the term "Syria":

”Syria was derived from king Syrus (Cyrus) either during his lifetime or after his death. This Syrus had killed his brother and ruled Mesopotamia. His whole kingdom was called Syria. The Syriacs were formerly called Arameans , but when Syrus ruled over them, they were henceforth called Syriacs."[6]

Next we have Elias of Nisibis (†1046) who was the Metropolitan of Nisibis. He was a prolific author, who wrote many works both in Arabic and in Syriac. In his Syriac-Arabic dictionary the term "Aramean” is renowned in "Syriac”. He equates the terms as a single one which means they have the same meaning. [7]

Next we have Abraham Yohannan , born in Urmia [Iran] in 1853 and died in New York in 1925. In his ‘modern’ Syriac-English dictionary he writes:

‘’According to generally accepted opinion the Syriacs were first known as Aramoye or Oromoye, which is Arameans, and their spoken language is Aramaya or Oromoyo, which is Aramaic. The language of the New Testament seems to make a distinction between Armoye and Oromoye grammar. Syriac lexicographers and commentators agree as regards this distinction. The former expression is used to designate the Hellenists or Pagans and the latter is applied to Syriac Christians. In course of time, however, the designation Suryaya or Suryoyo or Suroyo (Syrian/Syriac) came to be replaced by Aramean because the latter expression sounded pagan. Hitherto, indeed, it displeased the Arameans these things, that Syriac Christians despised Aramaic literature until its inception, and probably because it was destroyed by the Gentiles. The term Suraye is generally admitted to have been given to the people by the Greeks, though Syria retains a national tradition which was in use from before the Aramean designation, and the Greeks understood it from the Arameans.” [8]

Eugene Manna (1867-1928), born in Iraq was an educator and later Metropolitan of Basra Iraq. In addition to his lexicon, he wrote a Syriac grammar and two-volume Syriac literature collection "Selected Pieces of Aramaic Literature". In his Aramaic-Arabic dictionary he writes the following about the term ’’Syrian/Syriac’’:

Syriacs in general, whether East or West, were not called Syrians in ancient times , but Arameans dependent on their progenitor Aram, son of Shem, son of Noah. The dated name of Syria from a time was about 400 or 500 BC [...] […] The term Syrian was adopted by the eastern Arameans after Christ through the apostles, who had proselytized these countries.[9]

Last, but not least is a Syriac Dictionary by archbishop Touma Audo, an Aramean-Chaldean scholar and archbishop of Urmia, Iran. Touma Audo published ”The treasury of the Syriac language” in the year 1897 and it is the only Syriac Dictionary that is still used today by Syriac monks, teachers and bishops. If we look under the word Aramean (Aramaye) what we find is Aramean renowned in Syriac: Aramaya, Aramaye hanaw den Suryaye, Leshana suryaya aramaya. In English: Arameans i.e Syriacs, Aramaic language (which is) Syriac language. And if we read his preface he writes quotes like ’’The Aramean name is our genuine and original name’’.[10]

Footnotes (All of these are available to read online)

[1] Dictionnaire Syriaque-Francais

[2] Syriac-French-English-Arabic-Dictionary : Louis Costaz, C.J.

[3] Strong's Lexicon Search Results

[4] Syria from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

[5] Syria - Encyclopedia Volume - Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online

[6] (R. Duval (ed.), Lexicon Syriacum, Paris, 1888-1901, p. 1323-1324)

[7] Dr. D. Chwolsohn in Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus, Band I., St. Petersburg, Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1856, p. 440)

[8] Syriac-English dictionary by Abraham Yohannan, Part 1, Columbia University, New York 1900, introduction

[9] Bishop JE Manna, Chaldean-Arabic Dictionary, Babel Center Publications. Beirut 1915, p. 11-21

[10] Treasure Of The Syriac Language (volume 1) : Thomas Audo. 185.176.246.64 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you and 100% true! I recommend you to create a wikipedia account Syriac563 (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITE, WP:VER and WP:TLDR, this is painful to read through, let alone verify. I can already see some outdated sources, see WP:AGE MATTERS, as well as WP:SPS and WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

(1) this is painful to read through, let alone verify.’’ I just made the greatest summarize of all time and you claim that it is painful to read? I made paragraph division and in order to simplify for readers.

(2) ’' I can already see some outdated sources’’ Im gonna have to quote Christopher Hitchens on this one when he claims ’’you still have all the work ahead of you’’. When you make an assumption or a claim it is up to you to show theevidence in order to prove otherwise. It is not up to me to find it. You can’t make the claim that some sources are outdated without even mentioning a single one of the sources. Please try and be clear because at the moment you have left a lot of empty gaps in your comment.

With Kind Regards 185.176.246.64 (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is far from the “greatest summarize of all time”, kindly click the links I posted, since it is indeed your job to post it properly if you want to prove something. Also, I think its pretty obvious when I say “outdated” I’m referring to the 19th-century and early 20th-century citations. Bests. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by ’’outdated’’. Those you mention are dictionaries. The latest and most famous Syriac dictionary that is stil in use today by Arameans is the one writen by Touma Audo. The Syriac dictionaries written in the 21th century are not written by Arameans but most likely by biblical scholars. Whatever your stand on outdated'’ is and critic on 1-2 sources, it does not oppose the overwhelming evidence of the terminology between Aramean and Syriac/Syrian. 185.176.246.64 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not listening. Again, I ask you to please read WP:CITE, WP:VER, WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:SPS and WP:RS. I didn't make the rules. Bests. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

ARAMEANS STILL EXIST, STOP FALSIFYING HISTORICAL AND ACADEMIC FACTS

English Wikipedia is completely infested with Assyrian POV editing for more than 10 years. Anyone reading this shouldn't take English Wikipedia serious since it is, and has never been a reliable source regarding this topic. In fact, the so called modern "Assyrians" are ethnic Arameans, and not the other way around. https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/en/newsroom/research-center-for-aramean-studies-formally-inaugurated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.8.36 (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR in section for Late Antiquity & Early Middle Ages?

In the subsection for Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, under the History section, there's some WP:OR in my opinion. A large part (also included in the first section of the article) describes a, as mentioned in the article, process of "Syrianization". That is not an established term for any process, from what I can find in the sources listed (Minov 2020 & Wevers 2001). The term is even used in the subsection title here. Shmayo (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

With al due respect, @shmayo is an Assyrianist who tries to Assyrianize the Arameans in all possible ways. I already asked before if it is possible to block Assyrian nationalists from editing the Aramean page. Shmayo tries to make it look in all possible ways that modern Arameans don't exist and he tries to confuse readers by limiting/minimizing/manipulating information about Arameans to avoid that this name/identity gains any popularity. Syriac563 (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems like you are obsessed with your Assyrian identity. Your changes where you change Aramean into Assyrian confirm that you try to Assyrianize the Aramean people by name, identity etc. Syriac563 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Frenschkowski (2019)

I just took a look at Frenschkowski (2019). The two references here are strange, I cannot find him discussing these two matters (further hard to verify as no page reference is listed). However, there are other interesting parts that could be added. Will try to add something on Greek writers and Arameans (and other things when time allows). Shmayo (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Did some more rewriting based on Healey (2019) and Minov (2020). Took a look on some old diffs from 2021, it seems like this is the result of a single user's contributions. Shmayo (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)