Talk:Names of Syriac Christians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Beginning

Well, this page is here. I'm not sure what to think. Glaringly, the Syriac Orthodox Church does not universally support the term 'Aramaean'. They support the term 'Syriac' in English and 'ܣܘܪܝܝܐ' in Syriac. Now, some churches in Europe do use the term 'Aramaean' in a semi-official capacity, just as some Syriac Orthodox churches in Sweden use the term 'Assyrian'. Most people confuse the two different pronunciations of the homograph ܐܪܡܝܐ — 'Arāmāyā' is the ancient version that came to mean 'pagan', while 'Ārāmāyā' (spot the difference!) was a mediaeval creation based on Hebrew to mean 'Aramaean' without the negative connotations that the original word had developed. I'm not sure whether the Chaldean Catholic Church actually supports the idea of a Chaldean ethnicity or simply uses it as a label for its membership. I hope that this page might become a hub around which to build the other 'ethnic' articles with a more clear consensus. It's best to start with straightening a few things out though. — Gareth Hughes 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

well, I was bold. As with Macedonia naming dispute, it is more enlightening to compile an article on the question than watch the teenage patriots slaughter each other on talkpages. Please feel free to correct and expand it. dab (𒁳) 16:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree, and it's good to have it here. I just wanted to point out a few added complications! — Gareth Hughes 17:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this was a great idea. Credit to dab for this page, and Garzo, your expertise could be used here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:40 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

References Notes

Dab, you don't add reflist under notes. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:52 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

according to what? Look at any WP:FA using cite.php, e.g. Wonderbra, Helium, Guinea pig, and you will find a list of References under "References" and footnotes under "Footnotes". dab (𒁳) 12:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at any WP:FA using cite.php, What You Waiting For? Atheism Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening; that's the way I want it. Look, can we be reasonable about this? Reflist is reflist, that means, it should be References separate from footnotes. It just doesn't look very neat and it is certainly not practical the way you're doing it now. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:37 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

it is blatantly silly to repeat the full citation of a source in several footnotes. It is clearly better to cite the source once, in a "References" section, and refer to that from the footnotes. I fail to see how this can not be evident. dab (𒁳) 07:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Syrian vs. Assyrian

Elias, I placed a link to Syria#Etymology to refer to the fact that the word Assyria is probably completely unrelated to the word Syria. One derives from Assur and the other from Hurri. This isn't certain, but it is quite possible. Of course, in Greek, the two names came to be closely associated. This is completely beside the point for this article, since we are referring to the English terms "Syrian" and "Assyrian" regardless of their etymology. You seem to continue to labour under the misapprehension that factoids of ancient history or etymology can in some way invalidate the simple fact of current conventional terminology. It is a fact that Syriac Christians are referred to as either "Assyrians" or "Aramaeans", this isn't "correct" or "incorrect" in any way, its a mere convention. Just as it isn't "correct" or "incorrect" that the French are commonly called French rather than Gauls or Franks. dab (𒁳) 07:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read Herodotus VII.63 about the Assyrians? Thence is the name Syrian derived, not Hurrians. Why are you not paying attention to what this brilliant man is saying? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:11 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

sigh. I just said that the terms in Greek became equivalent. That doesn't change that Hurri is a possible etymology for Suri. Please don't bother to present youtube videos as sources. dab (𒁳) 12:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you deliberately trying to be this ignorant? That "YouTube" video, is Journal of Near Eastern Studies. In fact, you are using that very man, as a reference in this article: Names of Syriac Christians#References. If you take your time, and bother to read through this and this you will understand that Hurrians>Syrians is false. Also, that "YouTube Videos", is whether you like it or not, an academic source, because it is Richard Nelson Frye, from Harvard University. Why are you not paying attention to what I'm saying? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:52 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

By the way, about Hurri>Suri, you haven't read about that stone, have you? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:55 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

what "stone"? I am not 'trying to be ignorant', I simply didn't look at the video. If you have something to cite, cite it as text. I am completely agnostic on whether syrian derives form assur or from huri. Both are possible, and it is irrelevant for times after the 5th century BC. dab (𒁳) 13:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Copied directly from the Assyrian people article:

Furthermore, a more recent archaeological finding attests to the synonymy between the terms "Assyria" and "Syria". In Çineköy, Turkey, a Hieroglyphic Luwian and Phoenician bilingual monumental inscription was found, belonging to Urikki, vassal king of Que (i.e. Cilicia), dating to the eighth century BC. In this monumental inscription, Urikki made reference to the relationship between his kingdom and his Assyrian overlords. The Luwian inscription reads "Sura/i" whereas the Phoenician translation reads ’ŠR or "Ashur"[59]. In a thorough analysis of this inscription, Robert Rollinger, a professor of Assyriology at the Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck (University of Innsbruck), states that this bilingual inscription "settles the problem once and for all"[60]. Whether this is proof of the synonymy between the terms "Suryoyo" and "Ashuraya" is open to interpretation, and still a growing topic of debate.

Assyriologist Simo Parpola argues that the self-designations (Suryoyo/Suroyo/Suryaya/Suraya) current Assyrians/Syriacs/Chaldeans use, in actuality, have their origin in the ancient Assyrians' self-designation Aššūrāyu which also had a variant without the initial A, i.e., Sūrāyā.[24][25]

You should take a look at that clip, it's barely two minutes, and you should pay attention to what he's saying. It's not some random dipshit saying this and that and subsequently uploaded it on YouTube, it is actually a respect academic scholar. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:11 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

---

The fact is that the MAJORITY opinion of modern scholars is that the term Syrian is a Hellenic derivation of the term Assyrian. Of course it is possible that it is from "Hurri", but that is NOT mainstream opinion. Prior to the Hellenic period, the term Syria was not used at all, the region of modern Syria was called Aram. In contrast the term Assyria was used to describe, well....Assyria, right up until the Arab conquest of the 7th century. Furthermore, people such as the Armenians continued to use the term Assouri right up until the present day.

I do fail to see why there is what borders on an obsession with denying an Assyrian heritage to Assyrians among some people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Eastern/Western Assyrians

Benne, "classifying the Syriacs as Assyrians" is not "POV" but a simple matter of English terminology. google test:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 16,000 hits

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 4,500 hits

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 95 hits

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 140 hits

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 99 hits

I know we are documenting a dispute here, but we somehow have to do that using the English language. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

fwiiw, "Syriacs" gives me 22,800 hits

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

so that it may be that this term is at least as widespread in English usage as "Assyrian". It is difficult to know, of course, since googling "Assyrians" gives you 850,000 hits, and there is no way of knowing how many of these relate to the ancient Assyrians, and how many concern the modern people. dab (𒁳) 18:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I found:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 45,700 hits

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 952 hits

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 21,500 hits

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 176 hits

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 131 hits

Note, however, that we cannot base any arguments solely on Google. Let's use other search engines, as well as academic databases. --Šarukinu 14:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

fair enough. My overall impression is that "Assyrian" has been the standard English designation since WWI, and English language media are only gradually becoming aware there even is a dispute, and opt for "Syriac" as neutral ground. The 2000 US census lists "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" ethnicity so as not to step on anybody's toes. You must understand that most non-Syriacs simply don't give a shit about this, they simply want a term that is both accurate and unambiguous. "Assyrian" is the traditional term, and as long as Assyrians are not agreed that they want to be called something else, it's not likely going to change: what's the point of going from one term to another if the new term is just as controversial as the old. dab (𒁳) 13:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The English language media rarely reports on Assyrians in general, let alone the identity dispute. But I believe you're right, "Assyrian" became the standard term in English starting from WWI. Prior to that, the people were referred to based on their church affiliation.
But I believe how we are referred to in the English language is relatively irrelevant - English scholarship of the modern Assyrian people is relatively new. It is important to look at the documentation of these people throughout history from other nations, to piece together their identity. For example, in Georgia the Assyrians were called "Asoris" since their establishment in that country, if I'm not mistaken, and this goes back to before the Western-inspired nationalistic movements of the 19th and 20th centuries (of course I will have to find a reliable source supporting this claim, so please bear with me as I look for it :). Furthermore, we have called ourselves Sooraye or Suryaye/Suryoyofor centuries, which is cognate with "Syrian" in the English language. As you may have already read, and as is heavily supported by modern research (and therefore generally accepted), "Syria" is derived from "Assyria". In the Aramaic language, the words "Sooreth" and "Sooraya" were (and still are) often written with a silent Aleph at the beginning, suggesting that it was once Asooraya and Asooreth, as derived from Ashooraya. --Šarukinu 18:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added Efrem Yildiz documentation on the silent Aleph issue under Exonyms: Names_of_Syriac_Christians#Exonyms (look after Efrem quote). I think this is a very crucial and important aspect that should in no way be taken lightly. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Rephrase

Thus, in Germany and in Sweden, "Aramaean" (Aramäer, Araméer) is more common, but by no means undisputed.

Araméer is not the least common here in Sweden. They all call themselves Syrianer, and even those who claim descent from the "Aramaeans", call themselves Syrianer. Ask a Swede what an Aramaean is and he will have no idea what you're talking about. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:39 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Biggs and other verbatim quotes

This article reads as a tract to convince all Syriacs that they should regard themselves as Assyrians. The section Names of Syriac Christians#History and descent is supposed to give a bloodline argument for that, with endless verbatim quotes from more or less eminent scholars. I think this should be shortened. I had summarised Robert D. Biggs who considered it likely that ancient Assyrians from Nimrud are among the ancestors of modern Assyrians of the area around nearby Mosul. That is of course a rather safe statement after some 100 generations. Now EliasElucard reverted my edit (uncivilly calling this 'antics' in the edit summary) and restored the space-consuming verbatim quote. Elucard's quote is also selective, and by not mentioning what area Biggs was discussing, it might be read as the entire Fertile Crescent. That is why my short summary is better than a verbatim quote. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a long history of deleting (or trying to delete) anything that favours the Assyrian identity or supports us as Assyrians; this makes you a partizan user because you are not neutral and are trying to work against a specific side. We include quotes here in this article whether you like it or not. User:Dbachmann initiated the quotes and I've only continued what he started. If you feel that I've omitted any specific region Biggs has mentioned and think it's of any importance, that could be included but do not collapse his statement because his statement is valid. Also, in ancient times, Assyria was more than just northern Iraq. Assyria was also used interchangeably for the area of modern Syria, so don't make any snap judgements here about what area Biggs and others are talking about. If you think Biggs statement is trivial, that's your personal opinion but leave your personal POV out of Wikipedia. We are not interested in your personal opinions here; it's the experts' opinions we're supposed to include, not decrease the validity of their statements based on what some physicist thinks. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Likelihoods are more a matter of mathematics and genetics than of assyriology. After about 100 generations there would be 2¹⁰⁰ ≈ 10³⁰ ancestors. As a natural scientist I would say that it must be regarded as certain that ancient Assyrians from Nimrud are among the ancestors of modern Assyrians of the area around nearby Mosul. The math is trivial, and it does not need an expert in cuneiform to see this. Less selectively quoted, Biggs wrote:

"In the early spring of 1963, I took a train north to Mosul so I could visit the British excavations at Nimrud. While I was there, they arranged a Friday outing to visit some of the Christian monasteries in Assyria, including Mar Behnam, one of the best-known monasteries and which is still in active use. A couple of the monks gave us a tour of the monastery. Especially in view of the very early establishment of Christianity in Assyria and its continuity to the present and the continuity of the population, I think there is every likelihood that ancient Assyrians are among the ancestors of modern Assyrians of the area."

That does not sound like an opinion based on thorough research. There is no good reason to invoke Biggs as an authority on matters of genetics. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That opinion is backed up by decades of Assyriology. I think he's safe enough to state his opinion. If you think that his opinion was based solely on that preceding citation where he reminisces monasteries, then you are wrong. This is his biography, he was just writing down some memories of events in his life. But when he makes a statement that there's every likelihood that modern Assyrians are the descendants of the ancient Assyrians, that's an erudite opinion based on thorough research from a lot of Assyriology studying. Of course, he can't compare our genes with the ancient Assyrians since that isn't exactly possible. Look, if you feel the article is unbalanced, presenting one side more than the other, that's a valid concern, but it's not like we have a lot of sources and journals to the Aramaeanist side. You are free to include anything of academic value representing the side of the Oromoyo fanatics, but please don't just erase content that is backed up by academic sources because you think it's uninteresting. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 08:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I must say, I was not happy with this edit. First of all, deleting sourced information is one thing. But brushing it with has little bearing on the subject when it CLEARLY is, is another. This article reads as a tract to convince all Syriacs that they should regard themselves as Assyrians. - We are only following what Wikipedia's intentions are: to tell the truth, with the facts backing it up. If the truth with the facts backing it up comes to you Peiter as a tract to convince all Syriacs that they should regard themselves as Assyrians, then then maybe it should tell you something. Chaldean (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One has to ask Pieter, if the thought has ever crossed his mind that MAYBE all of us Syriac Christians from the Middle East, are indeed, Assyrians? And if that happens to be the case, why would he want to censor such a thing? Syriac Christians who are anti-Assyrian are welcome to add anything of academic value into this article that might be of another opinion. But please don't censor arguments from notable Assyriologists just to balance the article to an anti-Assyrian agenda. If you oppose Assyrian nationalism, that's a political stance you've made. But please keep that out of Wikipedia and don't mess up articles with sourced content to academic experts in the field. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On Swedish wikipedia, the quotes were removed from the corresponding article sv:Assyriska namnkonflikten, because there was consensus that displaying such series of long quotes was not in the style of an encyclopedia. Alucard did not accept that consensus. Here he is successfully defending even this rather trivial comment by Biggs. Ah well, let this self-described advocate of radical nationalism have his way then. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So, do you have anything important to say about the quotes in question, or is this part of your WP:STALK campaign against me? Because really, is this about me or is it about the article? Also, could you keep my opinions out of this discussion? I can speak for myself and I don't need someone like you putting words in my mouth. I can see you're trying to pull the same antics here like you did on the Swedish article. Removing content from the article (i.e., censorship) and waiting until you get consensus from other editors to remove controversial statements simply because they support the Assyrian side of the dispute. Look, I've told you, go and annoy someone else and not me. If you're not here to seriously put some hard work and effort into the article, and if you're just on your delete campaign, removing sourced content from Assyrian-related articles, then don't bother editing any of these articles. And if you have something against me personally, that's your opinion, but don't let that affect the articles. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 10:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here he is successfully defending even this rather trivial comment by Biggs - HOW is this tirvial when he clearly is talking about the subject in matter here? The page is called Names of Syriac Christians. It talks about the ethnic make-up of the Syriac speaking people. Briggs clearly states that they could be decendents of the ancient Assyrians. Where is the "Trivial"? And for God's sakes, could you stop bringing up Swedish Wikipedia every other minute? Other languages Wikis are so bias since there is only a certian amount of people can participitate. Besides those are totally different projects from the English based one. Chaldean (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain above, the comment by Biggs is about the ancestry of Syriac speaking people in the area around Mosul and Nimrud. Biggs does not say what percentage the ancient inhabitants of Nimrud contributed to the genetic make-up of the Christians of Mosul. He just says that they were likely to be among their ancestors. Of course the same goes for other peoples that have been known to have reproduced in the area: Babylonians, Parthians, Jews, Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Greeks, Romans, whatnot. Biggs's statement would be true already if only a single inhabitant of the area had a single one of his 10³⁰ bloodlines going back to an ancient Assyrian. Such statements are rather trivial from a probability point of view, and do not merit to be quoted in an encyclopedic work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, Biggs is a notable Assyriologist. He has studied ancient Mesopotamian civilisation, during the days of the old/middle/neo-Assyrian empire(s) and most likely some empires after that. Of course, modern Assyrians do have some ethnic ancestry that consists of other ethnic groups. We are not racially pure Assyrians, none of us have ever claimed this. Yes, there very well could be some of us who have forefathers way back when that happened to be Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, et al. That is beside the point, though. What matters here is to present notable academics and other experts' point of view on the matter in instances where it counts. In this case, the argument from the "Aramaean" faction goes that we have no decent/lineage/ancestry from the ancient Assyrians. Our job is to present historians, Assyriologist and other experts who both disagree and agree with this claim. If you Pieter want to be of any help rather than just deleting statements, try fixing that Sebastian Brock claim about us not having anything to do with the Assyrians (which is included in the Swedish wiki version) in English (I don't know where to look), if you want to balance this out into a more neutral case. Our job here is to present all sides of the arguments, not delete "trivial" statements. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 01:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

genetics is a red herring, irrelevant to this question. This is a question of terminology, period. As such, it isn't a question of which term is "right", we simply report which terms are in use, by whom and when. That's it. Elias' opinion that "Assyrians" is "correct" for reasons of race or descent is just that, the opinion of a Wikipedian. It has no place here. If all Syriacs could agree to call themselves "Unicorns" and submitted a declaration to the effect to the UN tomorrow, hell, we would discuss them under Unicorns (ethnic group). dab (𒁳) 09:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the most ignorant post you've made in a while dab. This is a question of terminology, and what do you think this question is based on? It's based on race and descent, of course. Why do you think the Aramaean fraction is claiming that we aren't Assyrians and that we should call ourselves Aramaeans? It's because they seriously believe (or have been indoctrinated to believe) that we are the descendants of the Aramaeans. Have you ever been arguing with these so called Aramaeans and heard their arguments as to why we're supposedly not Assyrians? It's all a question of descent. They have their own racial theories and everything. And that unicorn suggestion was just ridiculous and disrespectful. Thanks for likening our ethnic heritage with mythical fairy tales. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this is your opinion, but I maintain that it is false. If you think this is so obvious, on what basis do you presume ethnonyms are determined by descent? By this logic, the Swiss should insist to be referred to as Helvetii or Raetii. This is nonsense. They are referred to as "Swiss" by a convention established for some 500 years. This doesn't mean their history only extends to 500 years, but such is the typical lifetime of terminological convention. I recognize that this is all about descent to you. My point is that this is irrelevant: nobody is interested in your descent, international organizations would just like to know, could you make up your minds soon how you would prefer to be addressed? If you cannot agree just flip a coin or something, thanks. dab (𒁳) 15:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

More ignorant nonsense dab. To you maybe this is a question of terminology since you as an outsider, probably don't care what our ancestry is. To us Syriacs (me included), this is a question of descent. What the hell, do you think we suddenly became infatuated with the "Assyrian" name for no reason? No. We have one group of Jacobites who seriously believe, mainly because of politically biased religious indoctrination espoused by Ephrem the Syrian, that they are Aramaeans, as in descendants of the Aramaeans. Today, they are religiously fanatically obsessed in Ephrem the Syrian and they think they own the guy and almost worship his memory. Allegedly, he had stated that he was an ethnic Aramaean and now they're all trying to adjust themselves ethnically after his opinion. They even go so far as to think that they own the Aramaic language and that we Assyrians speak 'their language.' We have another group of Syriacs, which consists of Chaldean Catholics, Nestorians and Jacobites, who don't give a shit about what Ephrem said and base our ancestry on historical events, historical facts, and so on, because we understand that our history didn't start with Ephrem the Syrian. You dab don't have first hand experience of this name dispute. I have been in long and tired debates with these pseudo-Aramaeans and it's always, ALWAYS, a question of descent. It's a biblical dispute too since the region of Aram, after the Assyrians had dominated it, came to be called Syria. So now they believe that Syria was composed of racially pure Aramaeans and only Aramaeans once it began to be called Syria; they ignore that many Assyrians lived there after the fall of Nineveh. That is what this dispute is about. It's about descent, first of all, and descent is what the terminological dispute is based on. Look here. See how they claim that we are the descendants of the Aramaeans? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

you seem to be forgetting WP:ENC: we are taking the outsider's point of view. If you aren't capable of this, you should pick a topic where you are an outsider. This isn't a forum for the airing of patriotic sentiment, Assyrian or otherwise. If there is an WP:RS saying "the issue of terminology is wound up with notions of descent and ancestry for many Syriacs" we will quote it. My point is that we, as Wikipedia, cannot imply that the question is "obviously" connected to ancestry. It is, of course, for nationalists (such as you), but then nationalism is hardly the default NPOV position. If you are wrong, this doesn't automatically mean that the Arameanists are "right": both positions are wrong inasmuch as they take a worldview clouded by national mysticism as the default position. The problem with you seems to be that national mysticism is as invisible to you as water is to fish: you cannot conceive of an intellectual position which is not imbued with national mysticism, for you it's just a binary decision of which flavour of national mysticism it is going to be (Assyrian or Aramaean flavoured). That's hardly even medieval, man, not to mention rational in the sense of "capable of encyclopedicity". dab (𒁳) 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's like you're trying to be ignorant and keep on attacking me which is unfair and beside the point. This name dispute isn't centred around me. There are many other Assyrians and other Syriacs, a lot more influential than me, involved in this name dispute. Here, read this if you want a source that is focused on the descent aspect: "Generally speaking you have to distinguish between two aspects, one is the linguistic level, where the name comes from, and the other is the identity concerning culture, race, blood and things like that which are much more difficult and much more complicated to investigate. But concerning the name, it is now totally clear", says the eminent researcher.[1] And there's a lot more than this source in particular. Oh and, as far as nationalism is concerned, to me, nationalism is politics and that is the sort of ideology I think should be implemented in an Assyrian state (if there'll ever be one, which I seriously doubt). But on Wikipedia, I cite sources and write NPOV. Stop portraying me as someone who can't write from any other perspective than nationalism. That's an insult to my intelligence and a sort of character assassination. The entire reason I think we need nationalism is because we Assyrians, are in a very dire situation as a people and an ethnic group; it has nothing to do with national mysticism and other 19th century nonsense you try to connect me to. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

the "eminent researcher" makes the point that an academic question has now been decided, viz. that Syria and Assyria, two different term since the Roman period, ultimately have the same etymology. This is granted, and discussed on etymology of Syria. To the best of my knowledge, Suryaye is not normally written with a "silent aleph", because the words, in spite of their shared etymology, have been two separate words for 2000 years. What is your point? dab (𒁳) 16:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the entire article? Please try to understand, the etymology of Syria and Assyria is just a tiny aspect of this name issue. It has other aspects, such as history and descent, but also, language, and so on. And yes, Suraya is written occasionally with a silent aleph in ktobonoyo (classical Syriac). — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand. Ktobonoyo seems to refer to a type of retro-writing practiced by students in monasteries, according to the article Syriac literature. How can something like that be an argument in this debate? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Aramaic spelling of 'Suraye'

Oh and by the way, last I checked we are 'Suraye (apostrophe indicating a contraction of a silent A), not Babil or any other ethnic designation. So chances are very high that most of our ancestry consists of the ancient Assyrians, with some exception of other ethnic groups. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 01:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not get the Aramaic font on my computer, so I do not quite understand. What are the letters in 'Suraye' in the Syriac alphabet? Is the first letter not a Simkath? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be very appreciated if you did not take every chance you see to delete content. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a Simkath. The TriZ (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian Brock

Isn't strange how the most prominent in this area, Sebastian Brock, isn't mentioned anywhere? EliasAlucard has reputation of writing POV-material, in swedish wikipedia he now serves a endless blockage due to his edits in the syriac/assyrian area. This article is POV-material due to the fact that its content is assyrian propaganda and the editors is deliberately leaving out some academic material and choosing another. The TriZ (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This article does not have POV material. Just because I haven't cited Sebastian Brock (who's really not that incredible as you describe him), doesn't mean it's a POV article. If you want to cite Sebastian Brock, be my guest. Don't expect me to do it though because I don't have access to his books (which you know very well but pretend like I'm excluding his content intentionally). And don't bring up Swedish Wikipedia here as a cheap shot against me. I did not get blocked because of any POV writing, I got blocked because Swedish Wikipedia can't handle freedom of speech. In any case, that's beside the point and if you think you're going to get it your way by attacking me personally and portraying me as a bad guy, you're mistaken. I've already linked to The Hidden Pearl (which Brock is behind) in the See also section. So don't you come here and try to make it appear like I'm hiding "facts" or anything dishonest like that. I've linked to two of John Joseph's journals, and I've also cited him in the article. If you feel this article doesn't represent your personal POV, don't blame me for it when you haven't even worked on it. Bottom line is quit whining and help out with adding the sources you prefer in the article if you feel you want to balance it out. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly you have an assyrian agenda and your using wikipedia to spread this assyrian propaganda. That is the reason you were blocked for an endless time in swedish wikipedia. You are not appropriate to edit articles concerning syriacs/arameans/assyrians. The TriZ (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And you, TriZ, of course, are completely neutral. You have no aramaean agenda. You respect academic sources and don't remove them. You are here to tell the truth, the entire truth, and nothing but the truth. All irony aside, I got blocked on Swedish Wikipedia because of insults, not because of NPOV problems. Stop bringing this up, it won't get me blocked here the more you repeat it. If you are here to edit constructively and cite sources, you are welcome to do so. But if you are here to repeat incessantly that I got blocked on Swedish Wikipedia and engage in revert wars (which is all your Swedish Wikipedia account has contributed with so far, seeing how you're not a serious editor), then please delete your own account and don't bother wasting our time. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I respect respectable academic sources, what i do not respect is that you use sources as Yildiz, who calls himself an assyrian, in the matter of that we are assyrians or arameans. He is not objective. I also oppose you editing any article in this subjects. It was said by many adminstrators in swedish wiki that you were blocked not only because of your insults, but also because that they felt that you could never write anything objective in this subjects, now or in the future. You can read youself here [2]. To learn more about our heritage you should read the book "The Hidden Pearl", [3]. Also i recommend this page written by an American proffesor, Kelley L. Ross, [4]. The TriZ (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read Ross' nonsense. I am not interested in reading The Hidden Pearl, even though this is probably the tenth time you recommend it to me. And whatever the Swedish Wikipedians think, is of no importance here, since they don't know anything about this subject anyway. I understand that Oromoyo fanatics do not want me to edit Assyrian-related articles, because of course, you won't be satisfied unless we state "ASSYRIANS DO NOT EXIST, WE ARE ARAMAEANS!!!!!!!!!!11one". Forget it, it's not going to happen. Yildiz is an academic source, regardless of if he calls himself Assyrian or not. We report the academic sources, in an NPOV manner, biased as they may be. Oh and by the way, don't bring up Swedish Wikipedia any more here. Discuss the topic at hand or just don't bother. If you feel this article doesn't cite enough relevant points by your apparent demi-god Sebastian Brock, then feel free to add relevant quotes into the article (cited, might I add). But don't bring up Swedish Wikipedians and their irrelevant opinions. If you bring up Swedish Wikipedia again and my block there, I will ignore your comments. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so now academic material is nonsense? What I am trying to achieve by bringing up Swedish Wiki is that you are a improper editor of these articles. And what they know and dont know about the subject is not interesting, what is, is that they saw you clearly not objective and that you were driven by a assyrian agenda which you used wikipedia to spread your assyrian propaganda. The TriZ (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so now academic material is nonsense? — Kelley L. Ross is not an academic scholar on this issue and knows really nothing except for what he has read in a few books and hearsay. He has an opinion on the subject, an extremely biased (and perhaps also racist, if you will) opinion against the alleged and exaggerated cruelty of the ancient Assyrians (as if the Romans, Greeks, and every other ethnic group that has founded an empire haven't all been ten times more cruel than the ancient Assyrians were), and because of this exaggerated cruelty, he decided to attack the ethnic identity of the modern ethnic Assyrian group, with historical revisionism, claiming that Chaldean Catholics are Aramaeans simply because of the Chaldean appellation, and similar nonsense. Granted, while he does make A FEW good points in his rebuke, most of his article, is of course purely nonsense and the only people who can find it interesting are people who don't know this subject, are biased against modern Assyrian nationalism, or oppose the Assyrian ethnicity. If you can't spot Kelley L. Ross' discrete political agenda with his piece of trash article, then your opinion should be ignored because you don't know any better. So, do you have anything interesting to contribute to this article, like for instance, quotations from your superhero Sebastian Brock, or is this a monologue attacking me? If you're going to accuse me of an Assyrian agenda, you better make sure you lose your own Aramaeanist agenda, or else I'll label you a hypocrite. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 01:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

“Since I am not the specialist in ancient history, Assyriology, or linguistics, I am really not the person to whom people should complain about any of this.” – Kelley L. Ross[5] — Remind me to ignore his uninformed opinion harder next time you bring up this slanderous Ross guy. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 01:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What I am trying to achieve by bringing up Swedish Wiki is that you are a improper editor of these articles. — Prove it. That's a bold statement and if you're going to accuse me of this, you better make sure you can prove anywhere where I've manipulated sources, added false content, or anything like that. Otherwise it's just a worthless ad hominem attack and it can lead you to a block for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. they saw you clearly not objective and that you were driven by a assyrian agenda which you used wikipedia to spread your assyrian propaganda. — More lies and distortions. They banned me from Wikipedia because I used harsh language against my own ethnic group. They did not ban me because of any ethnic agenda, or anything like that. The fact that they after they had banned me, accused me of not being objective on the subject is just a cheap shot personal attack they utilised in order to justify their block. I've represented the academic sources I've cited quite well. The only problem I have, is that my own ethnic group is filled with religious fanatics who can't handle any other "truth" than what was uttered by Ephrem the Syrian and think they own Ephrem the Syrian and have made his memory their personal ownership. You guys have serious issues with objectivity due to a religious ethnocentrism, and then you have the audacity to come here and accuse me of not being objective on the matter, as if the infallible truth is flowing from your own mouths. If you want to edit Wikipedia articles, read some wikipedia policy, and try to follow it or don't bother removing sources and do not engage in revert wars. And don't bring up Swedish Wikipedia again. It is entirely beside the point, and as much as you're desperately hoping for me to get blocked by bringing up Swedish Wikipedia, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. And even if I got blocked, there are a lot of Assyrian editors here anyway, so don't think you'll face no opposition if you think you can come here and spread Aramaean lies about our history. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line is, you want this article to cite Sebastian Brock, do it yourself and quit your incessant whining about Swedish Wikipedia or anything like that. Don't expect me to do everything for you. You want your side in this dispute to be better represented, then you (emphasis on you) will simply have to contribute with sources and statements. End of discussion. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So you do admit that you have choosen side in the article by not representing the other side with sources and statements? The TriZ (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

On a personal level, I have most certainly, chosen side in this dispute (the same can be said of you, TriZ). I think those who advocate the "Aramaean" side, are stupid, backwards and ignorant, and I don't want to be associated with any of them. Based on that, I've chosen side. I also think your arguments don't hold any water (in reality, that is, and on an intellectual level). I think your side in this dispute is very biased, not the least objective, and tainted with religious fanaticism and historical selectivity where incontrovertible facts are put aside in favour of anything that champions an Aramaean identity, unreliable as it may be. This is the point of view I've rendered after numerous and endless discussions with you guys, where the recurring theme pretty much is as follows: Jesus spoke Aramaic, therefore the Aramaic language is our pride and we must be Aramaeans. Because Jesus spoke Aramaic, he must have been an Aramaean too and a Syriac Aramaean... This is how you can summarise the so called Aramaean identity of the religious nutjobs in the Syriac Orthodox Church (it should be mentioned, that although I'm baptised as a Chaldean Catholic and my father's side of the family are Chaldean Catholics, I grew up in a Syriac Orthodox Church environment). A good example is this guy,[6] and I sure wish he was the only one of his kind, but he's not. Many Aramaeanists have repeated the same stupid bullshit as he is stating in that forum post, in the discussions I've had with the "Aramaean" side. Aramaeanism, as far as I'm concerned, is not a real and actual ethnicity, but rather, a religious hyper-ethnocentrism, that, if allowed to prevail over Assyrianism, will only yield in psychological syndromes of the Assyrian people as an Aramaean "God's chosen nation" and similar nonsense we Assyrians don't need. However, as far as this article is concerned, I try to keep my personal opinions out of it and spare the diatribes to a better occasion, and simply cite the sources readily available. Sebastian Brock's "Hidden Pearl" isn't exactly available online, hence me neglecting citing it. I have, as I mentioned before, linked to the article The Hidden Pearl in the see also section, so don't accuse me of hiding your side in this dispute. You want Sebastian Brock's opinions included in this article, you're welcome to add them if you can cite his relevant points. Just don't falsely and dishonestly accuse me of POV-problems. On Wikipedia, we collaborate. That means, I am not supposed to do everything myself, rather, other Wikipedians are supposed to include cited content as well, where I fail to do so for whatever reason. If you would've added a statement by Sebastian Brock and I would have removed it, then, and only then, would you be justified in accusing me of POV problems (and perhaps also WP:CENSOR). Until then, get off my back and quit WP:STALKing me. You won't get it your way through harassment of a wikipedia editor. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So you do admit that you have choosen side in the article by not representing the other side with sources and statements? — Have I not included sources and statements by John Joseph? If you feel that the article is "unbalanced" (it certainly is to some extent), you are most welcome to add scholarly sources and statements by Sebastian Brock in order to make it more balanced, as long as they are relevant to the name issue and cover important aspects of this naming dispute. Oh and the sources should preferably be reliable too, in compliance with WP:RS (i.e., no Megalommatis nonsense). — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, spare my your nonsense. I dont need to read what you have written to know what it is, cause you repeat yourself always. From swedish wikipedia,

"Syrologen Sebastian Brock hävdar istället att dagens syriska kristna inte har något med de forntida assyrierna att göra, utan att denna benämning uppstått de senaste 1500 åren. Han hävdar också att folkgruppen har en arameisk identitet, och att benämningen assyrier "ignorerar det rika och varierade uråldriga arameiska arvet som alla syriska kyrkor har legitim rätt till".[7]" Den dolda pärlan (The Hidden Pearl). Den syrisk-ortodoxa kyrkan och dess forntida arameiska kulturarv, Vol III s. 123, S. Brock, D.K.G. Taylor, E. Balicka-Witakowsik, W. Witakowski (Trans World Film), Rom 2001 ISBN 1931956995

This you knew about, cause you were the one who was the most active in editing the article, and your POV article "Assyrier" (assyrians) are now being cut in pieces beacuse its so POV-edited.

You can also question why you quote an assyrian himself, Yildiz, and the chaldean patriarch (why not quote the Syriac Orthodox patriarch). You also chooses, like you did in the previous contribution, to use some more "silly" arguments instead of academic arguments. Which you are fully aware of that they excist, though you will if course deny it. John Joseph seems to be your favourite, cause you always uses him and then you show the reply of Frye in a way that makes the readers believe that Frye got the final word, and therefore he is the correct one. You do not mention anything about that the word syrian was used in a way to call people from the place they were living. Which was normal in those days. Instead you quote old greeks who called assyrians syrians and use it as an argument, though its more likely that the use the term syrian based on the place they were living. Also there is many quotes from people from before christ until today who mentions the aramic people in different ways (Efraim the Syrian called himself aramean, Jacob of Serug called himself aramean, etc). And you know all about this, but you choose to ignore this. I would contribute in putting this in, but my english has its limits as you may have understood by reading this. And even if i had edited the article you would remove it, like you have done before. The TriZ (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I'm not citing the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch, is because I have not found his statement from a reliable source, in English. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is an important policy to follow on Wikipedia, and I'm not going to use Syrianska riksförbundet (the only site where I can find that statement) as an authority on this, because like I've said before, Oromoyo fanatics have no credibility and should always, by default, be considered unreliable. Also, Brock's statement should be cited verbatim, from the original English translation, which is why I haven't added it into the article. As I've said before, you want these statements represented in the article (and they are most certainly welcome), do it yourself and quit complaining to me about it. And Joseph got his ass handed to him by Frye, there's no question about that, because Frye clearly showed how selective Joseph was with his sources, and Joseph has been proven wrong many times by other people (see for instance this). By the way, why are Oromoyo fanatics always so obsessed about Ephrem the Syrian? Who cares if he called himself an Aramaean? Was he your grandfather or something? Are you descended directly from his lineage? It's unbelievable what a narrow world-view you guys have when your entire world revolves around this Ephrem dude (who was a nobody in history). Oh and by the way, there were Arabs in Roman Syria too, see for instance Julia Domna. You guys could be Syriac-speaking Arabs or something. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 12:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we could be everything. But we most likely are Aramean. Here's a page [7] with lots of quotes, how would you feel if I started quoting all of them in this article? And no, they aren't fake. If you think they are, then try to prove it. The TriZ (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we are not at all Aramaeans. We are Suraye, and we all know what that means. (hint: Assyrians). I would instantly remove them because listing a massive amount of historical quotes would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and of no good use in this article. You can also see, that the article doesn't even mention the Herodotus statement that Syrians are Assyrians. If you are here on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of ethnic self-aggrandizement, I suggest you find a better hobby if you do not intend to work seriously on the articles. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I see quotes by Horatio Southgate and Michael the Great, under Aramic. And if course there is more than that. Clearly POV, when you choose sides and when the articles purpose is to show that syriacs are assyrians (which is obviously wrong). The TriZ (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add Southgate or Michael. And it's not POV just because they are there. Do you even know what POV is? It's means, point of view. For example, if I write in an article, Islam is evil, that's a POV, and should be, in accordance with WP:NPOV, rewritten to, X thinks that Islam is evil, thereby, making the statement more acceptable for inclusion in the article. As for choosing sides, that doesn't make the article POV. Here's the truth: pseudo-Aramaeans are a tiny, fringe, minority within the Syriac Christian community. They are in no way, representative for the majority of the Assyrian people. In the group of Turoyo speakers, there are many who identify as Assyrians, and have always done so for a very long time. We speakers of Syriac, are ethnic Assyrians. That is my truthful POV. I have not added this into the article, however, so in other words, quit pestering me about this if you have nothing of importance to add into the article. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Syrians or Assyrians

Benne, could you please explain to me why it's of such a crucial importance to you that the article excludes Western Assyrians and Eastern Assyrians in favour of Eastern Syrians and Western Syrians? What difference does it make? Catholic Encyclopaedia is old and outdated, and that is the old terminology of the group before the independence of Syria. Today, no one in the group calls himself Eastern Syrians or Western Syrians. No one. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 19:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I do. 81.231.169.154 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

East(ern) and West(ern) Syrian have been the terms for the various Syriac traditions for centuries, just like Syriaque in French, and Syrisch in German and Dutch. Assyrian has only been a quite recent invention, which has become more or less current since the late 19th century.

It is of crucial importance to me because Assyrian is a disputed and highly politicized term, whereas Syrian has been extant throughout the history of the Suryāye, and more importantly is a direct translation of the autonym Suryāyā, whereas Assyrian corresponds with Āṯūrāyē in Syriac. Both names, although likely coming from the same root etymologically, have had and still have different meanings and connotations, and hence Assyrian cannot serve as a translation of the Suryāyā. Syriac, although historically referring to the language, serves that purpose better, in my opinion.

Even though I believe that Suryāye is originally an exonym for the people who have called themselves and partly continue to refer to themselves as Armāye or Ārāmāye, I think that neither Aramaean nor Assyrian will be acceptable for either faction, and therefore I do not push for the name Aramaean to be used here. Even though Suryāye (Surāye, Suryoye) is common among pretty much all of the Syriacs, and even the name Syriac as an ethnonym is used by both Aramaean and Assyrian groups, the problem lies mostly with the Assyrianists who insist on applying the name of their preference to all Syriacs, both on Wikipedia as well as in the real world. Etymology, and the views of a handful of Assyriologists simply cannot settle a naming dispute. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 20:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced though it is, I think the following statement from the article says is all:

the "Aramaean" faction endorses both Sūryāyē ܣܘܪܝܝܐ and Ārāmayē ܐܪܡܝܐ, while the "Assyrian" faction insists on Āṯūrāyē ܐܬܘܪܝܐ but also accepts Sūryāyē ܣܘܪܝܝܐ.

If both factions accept Sūryāyē ܣܘܪܝܝܐ, what's all the fuss about? Settle for Sūryāyē and everybody's happy. But like I said, I think that the problem lies with the fanatics among the Assyrianists, who won't settle for anything but Assyrian. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 20:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What the big fuss is about, is that deranged lunatics writing on Aram-Nahrin, consider this article to be "diabolical evil act" and "Wikipedia and the continuation of Western Spiritual Colonial practices".[8] Of course, needless to say, they are insane. But we all know that already. Their conspiracy theories are quite hilarious though, and if this naming dispute wasn't a personal issue, I would have loled all day and read all of their articles. Benne, the notion that "Assyrian" was invented by western missionaries in the 19th century, is a blatant lie. It is a lie that was invented and popularised by John Joseph, and it has been proven false many times over, but that doesn't stop pseudo-Aramaeans from recycling this lie and perpetuating it, because, they know very well, in accordance with Joseph Goebbels' Nazi propaganda, repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth. It would be nice though, if you, User:Benne, would stop repeating this nonsense because you obviously know better, and you obviously, know that Assyrian is not a recent invention. The parenthesis section is not about the historical usage of Madinkhaye and Ma'irwaye, it's about modern terminology. By the way, Benne, just curious: you don't happen to be a writer on aramnahrin, do you? — EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For this kind of personal attacks, EliasAlucard got himself permanently blocked on Swedish wikipedia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And Swedish Wikipedia ought to be ashamed of itself for banning me. Do you have anything interesting to say, Pieter, regarding the topic, or have you intended to WP:STALK me and write everywhere that I got blocked on Swedish Wikipedia? Benne here is calling me a fanatic, that's a personal attack too. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 20:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a fact that you are a fanatic, as many of the people writing here. The TriZ (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The fact is that the MAJORITY opinion of modern scholars is that the term Syrian is a Hellenic derivation of the term Assyrian. Of course it is possible that it is from "Hurri", but that is NOT mainstream opinion. Prior to the Hellenic period, the term Syria was not used at all, the region of modern Syria was called Aram. In contrast the term Assyria was used to describe, well....Assyria, right up until the Arab conquest of the 7th century. Furthermore, people such as the Armenians continued to use the term Assouri right up until the present day.

I do fail to see why there is what borders on an obsession with denying an Assyrian heritage to Assyrians among some people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

self-designation

AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) on 10 May blanks an entire section without as much as an edit summary [9] and then on 13 May blanks it again, claiming "that has already been discussed."[10] -- what the hell is going on here? --dab (𒁳) 15:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to get both sides to cooperate with each other at Wikipedia_talk:Assyrian-Syriac_wikipedia_cooperation_board#Problems. Chaldean (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why have this section being blanked?? --WestAssyrian (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Syriac Christians Included

Why aren't the Syriac Christians of the Malankara Churches in India included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.233.102 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)