Talk:Arameans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sr 76 (talk | contribs) at 05:56, 6 August 2015 (→‎Edit request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fusuin with Aram

I would strongly argue against a fusuin with Biblical Aram, as Aram was just one of a whole plethora of Aramaean states that developed in the period between the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age.

Regards John D. Croft 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say not to. Aram is a region (not a state, by the way) and Aramaeans are a people. It is the norm to seperate the two into seperate articles. Examples would include Thracians and Thrace, urther, Shemite is used these days as an alternative to the tricky word Semitic. The latter word has linguistic connotations while Shemite is still terminology purely used in reference to biblical genealogy i.e. the country called Elam was certainly Shemite in the biblical sense but by no means semitic in the linguistic sense. The word Shemite is used here in this article to infer to the more discening reader that although the bible mentions a nation known as Aram as one of Shem's 5 immediate offspring, the linguistic nature of that alledged nation (nor indeed their eastern location) cannot be determined with any certainty despite attempts to connect them with central asia.

it's

It's Aramaean or Aramæan, not Aramean. — Chameleon My page/My talk 07:46, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


-- http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut%2026:5;&version=45; Deuteronomy 26:5 Amplified Bible uses Aramean, which is why I searched for the term. If Aramean wasn't used, the wiki article would not have appeared in search results. Dave

poor condition

This article is in a very poor condition. It does not distinguish properly between different uses of the name 'Aramaean' through history. Nor does it give a decent history of ancient Aram. I think this is a fair candidate for complete rewrite. Does anyone disagree?

Gareth Hughes 00:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree! (sharrukin 03:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Bible

History Section: Since when is the bible a historic document? One can't use biblical stories as a historical source.

You can use the Bible as a historical source, but you need to remember its accuracy and bias (like every source) and not use it as the only source. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dialect of Akkadian

According to the Semitic languages article, Aramaic is a West Semitic language like Hebrew and Arabic. Akkadian is an East Semitic language. So Aramaic is probably not a dialect of Akkadian.

You are right, and so I have removed the offending sentence. This article is poorly written and is need of a lot of cleaning up. Please feel free to help out with it. --Gareth Hughes 22:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The confusion come from the fact that when Aramean spread in the region, it mixed with the local language. There's a kind of aramean spoken in the akkad region who is know as akkadian aramean because akkadian had a strong influence on it.--equitor 23:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
NO not only in germany, in Syria and Lebanon too. tehre are also Muslim Arameans wich speaks fully Aramiac and writes wich acient aramaic scripts. Nochi 19:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems wrong. By the time that the Arameans were moving into Mesopotamia, Sumer and Akkad were generally collectively called "Babylonia." Also, "Aramean" is the people, and Aramaic the language. Wouldn't it be called "Babylonian Aramaic"? john k 23:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

14th century

I was under the impression that the Aramaeans arrived around 1100 BC. Apart from the enigmatic references to "Nahrima" in the Amarna letters, is there any evidence for an Aramaean presence in the Levant before 1100 BC?--Rob117 22:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New version....

Tell me what you think, it needs alot of work, I you can.... HELP... thanks (sharrukin 08:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I like it a lot. It is a vast improvement on what has gone before. As you noticed, I considered a rewrite almost a year ago, but I immersed myself in rewriting Aramaic language instead. I have made a couple of edits to your version, but all completely minor stuff from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Have a read through your article again, and add and correct as you see fit: I find that I have to keep on rereading my articles to make sure that I've covered everything. I'll hope to give some help on it when I can: I think the modern section needs a bit of work; after all, that's the section you didn't do much too! Thanks for this. --Gareth Hughes 15:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I am seriously considering changing Arameans to Aramaeans, all the "What links here" will then go to Arameans which will be linked (transfered) to Aramaeans. Slowly all related articles will adjust. What do you think? (sharrukin 17:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

For the spelling issue, see American and British English spelling differences#Simplification of ae (æ) and oe (œ). For the guidelines about which spelling should be used, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Because we have redirects, if one page references a different spelling, the link will end up here anyway. Valid reasons for moving the page would be that the page was earlier moved from Aramaeans to its present place, or that the entre article has be rewritten by someone in British, or Commonwealth, English, and would like the title to reflect their usage. --Gareth Hughes 18:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Topic closed. Neither reasons (mentioned) are valid enough, to make the transfer, since many scholars now spell it Arameans and also that its widely used in Wikipedia (less vas et viens). (sharrukin 18:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

modern Aramaeans

I will be working on the modern Aramaeans section, indeed it is uncomplete and weak. At the moment I did not have much documentation or personal solid knowledge on this specific topic. (sharrukin 19:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

New version II....

I am sure there's alot more of work/study/research to be done on it. Hope to get some help achieving this:

  • Documenting the different periods of time in general context, if not see the next point.
  • Combining the History subcategories into one homogeneous text, so it could gently resume the Aramaean history in a chronological frame.
  • Listing the different Aramaean kingdoms, their location, cities, kings and their specific chronology.
  • Demonstrate the Bible's vision of Aramaeans / the ethnic relationship between Aramaeans and Hebrews.
  • ...

(sharrukin 19:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Chaldeans

As the Chaldeans are often said to have originally been an Aramaic tribe, should they be addressed as well?--Rob117 02:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Rawlinson quotation removed --sharrukin 04:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)--sharrukin 05:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They were definitely Semitic, or at least Semiticized. Every source I look at that attempts to trace their origin calls them an Aramaic tribe.--Rob117 01:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rawlinson was writing more than a hundred years ago. It's quite possible that what he called the "Chaldeans" may be what we would call the "Sumerians." Even if not, he's certainly not a reasonable authority at this point - the Chaldeans were certainly semites, and apparently spoke Aramaic. john k 01:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is found at Gutenberg. He seems to be talking about Chaldeans rather than Sumerians (though he muddles the two a bit) but I agree generally with John K's above remarkBriangotts (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, quoting Rawlinson is notably precarious, specially regarding Chaldean origins. I shall spurn the quotation. But are we confident, 100+ years, later that they were Semitic or Aramaeans? is the use of a widely spoken language(Aramaean) adequate to say they were Semites or Aramaeans?--sharrukin 05:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since "Semitic", used in any realistic scientific sense, is purely a linguistic definition, I would say yes. --Briangotts (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Rawlinson's discussion of the "Chaldees" and their language, it seems clear he is referring to Sumerian - or, at least, to a possibly non-Semitic language spoken in lower Mesopotamia centuries before the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The only possible language this could be is Sumerian, as far as I can tell. I think it is perfectly fine to say the Chaldeans were an Aramean group. john k 01:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac vs Aramean

Durring the advent of Christianity, Christian Arameans (Aramaye) referred to themselves as Syriac (Suraye) as apposed to Aramean to distinguish themselves from the Pagans (Kappore). In fact the term Syriac is used almost interchangably with Christian albeit the two terms aren't the same.

Modern Arameans

I reverted Pylambert's removal of the the Modern section, and subsequently the Syriacs template.

I also think the quality of the section needs a lot of improvement, but simply deleting it is in my opinion a misleading way of changing the subject of the article, which was apparently the primary objective of the editor. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now tagged for not being accurate because of the "modern" section and your ill-designed Syriacs box. --Pylambert 11:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article would be better without the modern section. However, there should be a sentence in an appropriate position that says that many traditionally Aramaic-speaking Christians of the Middle East consider themselves to be descendended from the ancient Aramaeans, and call themselves Aramaean. Then we could link to the article where we discuss modern Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac/Aramaean people (when we've decided what it should be called). --Gareth Hughes 13:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, there should be a sentence in an appropriate position that says that many traditionally Aramaic-speaking Christians of the Middle East consider themselves to be descendended from the ancient Aramaeans yea and we should also clearly state that these people do not live in the middle east, but rather in Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden. Chaldean 03:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello people. The article needs a lot of work. please lets wait for a while to improve it. Brusk u Trishka 10:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

Arameans → Aramaeans – In the article itself, Aramaeans is consequently used. For the sake of conformance, I suggest moving the article. Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support Despite the archaic form, the usual English spelling. Septentrionalis 19:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Chaldeans,Assyrians (Nestorians) and Syriacs are Aramaic

Chaldeans, Nestorians and Syriacs are part of aramiac people and its a diclamer on this article where it stands that thoose are Aramaens. Nochi 11:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me ONE group outside of Northern Europe that call themselves "Aramaya"? This was a poor attempt at a joke. Nochi please watch what you doing. You don't just make up stuff and put it on wiki. Chaldean 12:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of the joke;

  • Flag of Lebanon Lebanon 2,000,000[citation needed]
  • Flag of Syria Syria 1,500,000[citation needed]
  • Flag of Iraq Iraq 700,000[citation needed]
  • Flag of Jordan Jordan 70,000

WHERE IN THE MIDDLE EAST DO YOU ACTUALLY FIND PEOPLE CALLING THEMSELVES AMARAEAN? NOWHERE. Chaldean 12:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC

"Aramaeans" is a self-designation of Assyrians in Germany, see de:Aramäer (Gegenwart). This may be noted at Assyrian people. dab (𒁳) 13:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23 000 Assyrians in Germany. How many is there, who say they are "Aramaeans"? Since you live in Germany, I have to ask: do you ever bump into these morons? Not even here in Sweden, are the "Aramaeans" a majority. And the Syriacs are a majority here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:41 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
like u have u clue. u "assyrian" troll (: Nochi 20:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aramaean religion

I do not see any mention of Aramaean religion practiced by more than 166000 people in Iraq, in this article. I found information of this religion, a news item, on Aljazeera TV news chanel recently. These people of Aramaean origin practice that religion and they claim to be very different from Islamic Arameans, they tell that they believe in peaceful living and do not believe in killing any body in the name of Jehad. They worship a river Euphrates. A movie clip showed, they reading their scripture, writen in old Aramaen language as explained by the commentor. It appeared to me that their ancient religion has something common with Hinduism of india. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the official Aramean website?

I am fixing an Arab article and I want to refrence to the Arameans that don't identify as Arabs. Is this the right website? http://www.aramnaharaim.org/ --Skatewalk 11:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no "official" website, but the one you've found quite elaborately explains the position of the Aramaeans. Also, you might want to check out Urhoy, which sums up a long list of historical sources, stating that Syriac equals Aramaean. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I am a bit confused. I know the majority among Maronites don't identify as Arabs (only a minority are ethnic Arabs and a fewer number of self idnetified Arabs). I tried changing the number of Arabs in Lebanon to 2million Arabs instead of 4 Million, but it got reverted.

Is Aramean a cultural term? similar to the Modern Arab term? can you be an ethnic Turk and be Aramean if you choose to be? Just like you can be an Arab even if you are ethnically berber?

Also religion? Can you be an Aramean Muslim? or does the religious status of Arabic in Islam conflicts with the Aramean identity?

Anyways thanks for the reply. --Skatewalk 23:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Aramaean people today. They are Assyrians. Assyrians speak Aramaic today, and have spoken Aramaic since the Neo-Assyrian Empire. We just have some confused Assyrians, and ant-Assyrians like Benne are perpetuating this confusion and trying to split the Assyrian nation. These "Aramaeans", only call themselves Aramaeans in northern Europe. No Assyrian in the Middle East calls him/herself "Aramaean". — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:10 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Ok man you are very politically minded! I am against political imposed identities (Arabization included), anyways I asked other questions =( ! --Skatewalk 03:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question - Aramaeans dont exist today. Nobody in the Middle East calls themselves ethnic Aramaean. You will only find them in Northern Europe (they are very small in numbers.) Chaldean 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are Assyrianist lies. I have personally met and read interviews with Syriacs in Turkey who identify themselves as Aramaeans. Also, on the website you found, and the Urhoy website I pointed out to you, you can find plenty of references to Syriacs who identify Syrians with Aramaeans. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a liar and you know it. You even admitted asking 50 Syriacs and only ONE replied Aramaean and God knowns how you pressured him with your agenda. Chaldean 03:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you getting confused now? That time I was quoting from a Turkish book on Syriacs, mostly living in Istanbul, 2 per cent of whom called themselves Aramaean (another 2 per cent used the self-appelation Assyrian, do you remember?).
Also, if you look at the Urhoy website, you'll see that famous Syriacs like Ephrem the Syrian and Bar-Hebraeus, and more recently Patriarch Ignatius Afram I Barsoum and Metropolitan Yuhanon Dolabani have acknowledged their Aramaean identity. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That website is taking things out of context. It is a crappy website along with the other crappy websites you provide. How about bringing academic material to the table? I guess you still haven't learned. PS - I acknowledge my Aramaean heritage as well, but you are so ignorant in so many ways, that you actually think you can make a whole nation change what they call themselves. Get real, its not going to happen. Chaldean 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone here is perpetuating lies, it's Benne. Either cite academic sources, or get lost with your Aramaeanist bullshit revisionist websites. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:41 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

this isn't about "lies", it is about 19th century rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire. 19th century history isn't within the scope of this article, please take it elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 12:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This ridiculous conversation sounds like something that could have come from Borat. What on earth are you people talking about? Arameans/ Assyrians lol! It's the equivalent of a bunch of Italians arguing about whether they are Etruscan, Umbrians or Samnites after 2500 years of invasions, migrations and intermarriage. Get a life.

While I'm at it, what does The great massacre that took place in later days from the Hittites left the Arameans broken and worthless but they rose again. mean? Is this a mish-mash of broken English propagandistic editing on top of older propaganda?1812ahill (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails to mention the primary origin of Aramaeans

It is well known that Aramaeans primarily originated in Arabia. It is written in Wikipedia itself in countless places, but it doesn't show in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HD1986 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that recent theory is undisputed, and it actually appears in no primary sources, but if you have a secondary, feel free to cite it neutrally, with proper attributation. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians not from Aramaeans???

I'd always got the impression that Aram fathered the original Armenian Empire and the newer language of modern Armenia came later due to much outside influence. Is this not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends whose books you believe, doesn't it? But per the neutrality policy, we allow references for any significant POV, so both sources that have stated this, and the ones disputing it, should be attributable. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The toponyms Aram for the Aramaeans and Armina for the Armenians. It is unlikely that they have anything to do with one another, although it cannot be ruled out that they are both derived from a single, prehistoric, toponym, since after all, from the Mesopotamian perspective, where these toponyms were used (both are exonyms!), both regions were just "to the north". We can't know. --dab (𒁳) 13:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Arameans

Why is this information not in this article? "An Aramean identity is one form of Syriac identity, emphasizing Aramaean identity. The Aramaeans were a people settling in the Levant since the Late Bronze Age, who following the Bronze Age collapse formed a number of small kingdoms before they were conquered into the Assyrian Empire in the course of the 9th to 8th centuries BC.

Such an Aramaean identity is mainly held by Syriac Christians in Lebanon, Turkey, Syria and in the diaspora especially in Germany and Sweden.[24] In English, they self-identify as "Syriac", sometimes expanded to "Syriac-Aramaean" or "Aramaean-Syriac". In German, Aramäer is a common self-designation.

The "Aramaean" faction often puts emphasis on the destruction of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, especially in the words of the prophet Nahum and his description of the fall of Nineveh.[25]" ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase Assyrians nationalits can't stand it, and let's face it, they think they own these articles and no one seems to oppose this. It's not okay to write about the modern Arameans (more known as the Syriacs), but it's okay for them to write about the so-called "modern Assyrians" in Assyria. The TriZ (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is the article on the historical people, not the modern group. Like, as has been pointed out in the disambiguation hatnote at the top of the article for ages. The article on the modern group currently resides at Assyrian people. I know this violates WP:NPOV, but allegedly there was a "consensus" for this move. I have protested this claim as bullshit, but here you are. If you want to do anything about this, you want to establish that there was no "consensus" for a move of Assyrian/Syriac people to the current title. Do not attempt to begin a "proxy war" about this ill-advised move at this unrelated article about a Bronze Age topic, you will lose my support in the naming thing immediately if you try such tactics.

You are right that there should be no discussion of "modern Assyrians" on the Assyria page, but I fail to see any undue material in the current revision of that article. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aramaization of the Assyrian empire

In recent edits, it has been claimed that the Aramaeans in the Assyrian empire "fell to the Assyrianization process of the Assyrian empire". Which is very doubtful. On the contrary, the mainstream opinion among modern schoolars seems to be that the Assyrian empire was Aramaized by the Aramaeans ([1], [2], [3], [4]). The TriZ (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the revert before, I missed this discussion. Would it be fair to say a bit of both happened? At least politically, they were under the Assyrian king. "Assyrianization" usually refers to subject people getting moved around or mistreated by the Assyrians, although it is true that Aramaic language also replaced Assyrian as a wider lingua franca dutring that era. My version was trying to explain this situation, but hopefully we can explain it in a way suitable for everyone, and is not repetitive. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created the entry after your revert, so you have nothing to apologize for, so I'm therefore to blame :) Nevertheless, I agree that it can be fair to say a bit of both happened, assuming "Assyrianization" refers to what you say it usually refers to. The reason I deleted the sentence was due to that I thought it was misleading, since I interpreted it as it was saying that the Aramaeans assimilated in the Assyrian empire and became part of it as Assyrians. Because I believe, and if you read in the sources I linked to as well, that the Aramaization of the Assyrian empire wasn't only on a linguistic level, but also on a cultural. The TriZ (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on relevance of Aramaic language to Aramaeans

From the edit log:

  • 16:07, 31 ኦገስት 2010 Dbachmann (11,097 bytes) (it is pointless to give the term in Modern Aramaic because it has nothing to do with the topic. We also don't give the tranlation in Finnish or Farsi.)
I'm sorry, but I still fail to understand. You are seriously saying that Aramaic is just as irrelevant to "Aramaeans" as are Finnish and Farsi? Can the language of "Modern Aramaeans" not be traced etymologically to the language of earlier Aramaeans? Or are Ancient and Modern Aramaic wholly separate and unrelated languages now? This seems more than just assertively doctrinarian, but utterly out-to-lunch reasoning. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but have you been paying any attention to the huge "Aramaean":"Syriac":"Assyrian" nonsense? It has only been going on for about three years all over Wikipedia. Of course Modern Aramaic is ultimately descended from the West Semitic language of the ancient Aramaeanes. Like, about 3,400 years later (or, if we are kind, 2,700 years). Giving the Modern Aramic term for Aramaeans, aramaia, more likely than not adopted from the Greek just like English "Aramaeans", is about as sensible as giving Gaelic Na Ceiltigh and Welsh Y Celtiaid as the "native name" in the intro to the Celts article. In other words, not sensible at all, but an involuntarily comic, irresponsible pushing of the naivest sort of ethnic essentialism.

I am sorry, Til, I can hardly believe I need to point out any of this in any detail. You really left me with the impression of a mature and informed editor in recent months.

If we can cite an actual self-designation, recorded natively before 700 BCE, that would be an entirely different matter. If you have such a reference, by all means cite it. Compare the "Gutans" debate at Goths. Gutans is a reasonable reconstruction of what the Goths probably called themselves. Some people insist on beginning the article "The Goths (Gothic: Gutans)". This is at least not an anachronism, but it is highly dubious because the name is not actually attested. I am sure you will find no other encyclopedia that introduces the Goths in this fashion. What you are trying to do here is not so much like "the Goths (Gothic: Gutans)", it is much more like "The Teutons (German: die Deutschen)". The difference being that we don't get many German-speaking editors mad about the idea of being identical with the ancient Teutons while, by contrast, we get lots of Aramaic-speaking editors (or at least, editors whose grandparents could still speak Aramaic) who are absolutely desperate to be identical with the ancient Aramaeans. Wikipedia gets this a lot, it's not a problem, we just need to be on the lookout for such edits and revert them. Thank you.

--dab (𒁳) 13:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone else other than DBachmann please explain to me clearly what DBachmann is arguing? I fear I will never be able to follow his line of reasoning in his own words. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jazirah

Hi folks, fixing links to disambiguation pages and found a blue link for Jazirah in the last paragraph of the "Origins" section. I have delinked it as there is no article for this "Jazirah" at Jazira. I assume this is a document, perhaps someone here can try to link it properly if possible. Cheers, The Interior(Talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move - again

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Aramaeans → Arameans — Relisted. Opposition seems to be based on WP:ENGVAR however this article began using Arameans. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Has more widespread usage over "Aram[a]eans". "Aram[a]eans" often used in academic research, and though some books can be found under the "Aram[a]ean" name, others can be found under the "Aramean" name as well.[reply]

Although it's not justifying, but Google test results shows:

  • "Arameans" = 75,100 results
  • "Aramaeans" = 37,900 results

Anyhow, it would not harm the article (and those redirected to it) whatsoever. - שבור (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Aram[a]eans" is an archaic form, "Arameans" is more common. - שבור (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "A wandering Aramaean is my father". At best, this is a WP:ENGVAR violation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. How about "Aramean" being a more common name and usage? Why not to support it? (for example, like in case of Judea and Judaea) - שבור (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Arameans" just looks weird and I suspect originates in an ENGVAR, since Americans generally seem to prefer "e" over "ae". -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NIV: "My father was a wandering Aramean"
  • NLT: "My ancestor Jacob was a wandering Aramean"
  • ESV: "A wandering Aramean was my father"
  • NASB: "My father was a wandering Aramean"
  • GWT: "My ancestors were wandering Arameans"
  • Darby Bible: "A perishing Aramean was my father"
  • Orthodox Jewish Bible: "An Aramean ready to perish was Avi"
What so weird in writing "Arameans"? It is written by many Syriac-related websites, such as Syriac Universal Alliance, Aramean Democratic Organization Etc. It is not that I insist on it, but it's more common this way. I really don't see any reason for it wouldn't be accepted here... - שבור (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because English usage (supported by the English Bible) is Aramaean, but Aramaic. This article is not intended for the Syriac community, but for anglophones as a whole. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7 English Bibles actually support "Aramean", not "Aram[a]ean"... - שבור (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming. It appears to me that "Arameans" is more common. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Modern Aramaeans

I know this have been discussed before but I think we need to clarify here that some modern Assyrians/Syriacs may prefer to be identified as "Aramaeans".--Rafy talk 19:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If modern "Assyrians" can have their own Wikipedia site, why not the modern Aramean as well since both names Assyrian and Aramean are just political names. We have enough discussed about it on the Talk:Assyrian people page and the real name for their ethnicity should be becoming clear for everyone neither Aramean nor Assyrian but ethnic Syrians/Suryoye. Such a Aramaic unification is REAL otherwise Syriac people from all over the world wouldn´t argue about it, if they are Aramean, Assyrian or whatever. An Aramean identity can be predominantly found by Syrian-Orthodox (West Syrian Rite) Christians in Syria, Turkey and Europe, while an Assyrian identity is held by Syriacs from Iraq, North America or Iran and they are of East Syrian Rite. If such an modern Aramean page is not possible then the question must be asked why there is an Austrian people Wikipedia site or Austrian portal page. Both pages must be merged with the German people Wikipedia site or not? And the Austrian flag needs to be replaced with the German flag. A modern Aramean page can refernce to the Syrian (not to be confused with Assyrian or the population of the state Syria!) ethnicity and the same applies for the Assyrian people page, which definetely needs a clean up from its propaganda. I am wondering how such a page can exist on Wikipedia without airtight evidence.--Hansestd (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian/Syriac is not an ethnicity or race. These words both mean Assyrian historically, so if you call someone Syrian or Syriac it means Assyrian entymologically. Aramean and Assyrian are real ethnic words;- Aramean from the Levant, Assyrian from North Mesopotamia. Syriac always meant exactly and just Assyrian until the Greeks included The Levant into Assyria/Syria. This is all very very clear.

Quranic Reference

Is there even a reason to include this fact? - "A city of Aram (or Iram) is also mentioned in the Qur'an, as Aram of the Pillars, home to the A'ad people in Alahqaf region الأحقاف (The Rub' al Khali)." It doesn't seem to have any relation to the article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.40.57 (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quranic name is Irm That al-Imad and it is not related in any way to the Aramaeans. removed.--Rafy talk 16:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

I do not understand what the "Aramean flag," clearly a modern invention, has to do with this article, which is explicitly "about the ancient people" (who obviously did not use such a flag). Languagehat (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 6 April 2015

The statement "In 2014, Israel has decided to..." might be incorrect because the source hasn't supported the figure of 10,000 Syriac Christians in Israel, it is about 1,000 but unconfirmed. This statement should be updated, with:-

"By 2014, Israel started to recognize the Aramean community as part of the country's population demographics."[5](updated source)

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comments from other editors, so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 different pages?

Hello

I dont understand it? This is going about the Aramean history? But there is another Aramean page? Why arent these pages 1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.153.68 (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one understands it, Wikipedia administrators have completely messed this up. Sr 76 (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

the first line only reads this way based on the politically driven POV. There should be no reason why it still reads: The Arameans, or Aramaeans, (Aramaic: ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ‎, ארמיא ; ʼaramáyé) were a Northwest Semitic people who originated in what is now.....

please changed to: The Arameans, or Aramaeans, (Aramaic: ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ‎, ארמיא ; ʼaramáyé) are a Northwest Semitic people who originated in what is now.....

Sources: S.Brock, "An introduction to Syriac Studies" "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'" p68

Sebastien de Courtois, "The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, the Last Arameans" Interprets Xaview de Planhol: "Were the Nestorians of Hakkari [Assyrians] originally Arameans from the plain 'kurdized' by contact with the Kurds, or were they Kurds who had become Christian under the cultural influence of the Aramaic world?" p51

E.Fraham “Wie ‘christlich’ war die assyrische Religion? Anmerkungen zu Simo Parpalas Edition in Die Welt des Orient” 31 (2000-2001), following a missionary impulse” and compares him to the “Christian Arameans ‘Assyrians’ from Northern Iraq p 31-45

In a letter to John Joseph, dated June 11, 1997 Patricia Crone wrote that she and Cook: “We take it for granted that they got the modern Assyrian label from the West and proceeded to reinvent themselves… Of course the Nestorians were Arameans.”

Sr 76 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. First, this article is only semi-protected; if you think an edit should be made, you can make it yourself. Sorry, forgot it was actually fully protected. However, the edit you suggest would in effect again constitute a content fork of Assyrian people; you know perfectly well why that's not acceptable, so don't. Final warning: you need to stop complaining about the article titles and article scopes and finally start actually developing the articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I'm not complaining about the article title.

It was the word "were" instead of "are". No it does not constitute a content-fork. There is nothing to suggest that the ancient Arameans became extinct, so why use the phrase the Arameans were? If the Arameans page is for the ancient Arameans then so be it. and since you have the content of modern Arameans clumped into the Assyrian people in the and the disambiguation of the page pointing the Assyrian people page. Where is the content-fork? Sr 76 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Future Perfect at Sunrise: where is the content fork? Sr 76 (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Established..... Sr 76 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this consensus established? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FuturePerfect completely misunderstood what I was talking about, I wasn't talking about the article title. That's why he didn't respond to my followup question. He's just not going to reply, that all he does, he threatens to block people for no reason. Let him explain where the WP:POVFORK is....

Sr 76 (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arameans&oldid=674797968"