Talk:Aramean-Syriac people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Syriac people[edit]

The term Syriac people gives 730,000 hit counts in google. [[1]] . VegardNorman (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

yes. It's another name for the group also known as Assyrians/Syriacs and variants. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the term "Syriac People" with quotes yields just under 8,700 hits, and if you look at the top 20 rated, it is as part of the political name that two political parties - the Assyrian Democratic Organization and the Assyrian Democratic movement (Syria and Iraq respectively) use to describe the "Assyrian Chaldean SYRIAC People". It is a political name for political use, rather than an academically historic one. And as you continue through the google hits, you will notice it is consistently part of the larger designation "Assyrian Chaldean Syriac people" - the political designation created only since the Iraq war in 2003 by political parties This page should be reduced to simply stating the "Syriac-Aramaean" is a subgroup of religious Orthodox Assyrian Christians who created a new ethnic designation to further themselves from the Assyrian nationalist movement. Especially since no one, with the exception of a small group of Orthodox Assyrians - use this designation, and only in northern Europe and

Lebanon.Waleeta (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Waleeta Waleeta, if your here to spread some false propangda, I suggest you leave. Or else you can start using sources or start reading about the subject since there is a Syriac Orthodox Church, with millions of members. And it is a FACT that there are people in Europe, America, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey etc whom identify with the Aramean-Syriac identity. And it is as the sources show in the article, not a small group. It really seems that this group is bigger than the Assyrian group. The TriZ (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Triz, everything I said is true and easily found online. I did not say, anywhere, that people do not identify as Aramaean-Syriac - I merely insisted that it should be based on the context that it is only those of the Orthodox Assyrian church who call themselves such(renamed Syriac in the mid-20th century), and that there are many self-identifying Assyrians as well. No other "Syriac" speaking group of Christians refers to themselves as Syriac-Aramaean except for SOME of the orthodox community, whereas others are Assyrian.

If you, however, are here to ignore these facts, perhaps you should not contribute to an online encyclopedia site. This isn't about spreading propaganda, it is about being intellectually honest and academically honest as well. The first immigrants from Turkey and Syria, for example, to the United States post-Genocide, were members of the Orthodox church (then called Assyrian). They identified as Assyrians. They founded the current Assyrian American National Federation. It is dishonest to claim, in this article, that it is an ethnic group without discussing why it is now an ethnic group. See Donabed, Sargon "Remnants of Heroes" - you will find the original immigration documents citing "Assyria" as the country of origin for Assyrians arriving from Turkey, members of the Orthodox Church. This is a politicized ethnic identity, pushed by the Orthodox church. I am not saying they don't exist - they do, of course. But we have to be honest about when, where, and WHY.Waleeta (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Waleeta

It's really bold to say that the Syriac Orthodox Churchs name was the Assyrian Church in the mid-20th century, anyone who claims that cannot be taken seriously. And I'm sorry to say that I cannot furthermore discuss the issue with you, if you keep calling the Syriac Orthodox Church for the Assyrian church. Btw, just to point it out, there are catholics who also refers to themselves as Aramean-Syriac. The TriZ (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Triz, it has become evident that you didn't know that this church was the Assyrian Orthodox church before the 1960's. I apologize, I assumed it was understood - it SHOULD BE understood considering this is on Wikipedia.
It was Mar Ofrom of the this Orthodox (Jacobite) Church who, after the Genocide of 1915-1918, having traveled on behalf of the Orthodox Patriarch to the Paris Peace Conferenced, wrote a letter referring to his own nation as "Assyrian". Please also note that he, the Orthodox Bishop, refers to his parish as "Syrians" alongside "Nestorian" and "Chaldean", clearly indicating he was referring to the religious designation. It is clear that politics of religious nationalism in the Middle East of the 20th century has affected the ethnic Assyrians, and has split them into various religio-ethnic groups. For the original letter, please see here: (notice here, in the first paragraph, he writes "OUR ancient Assyrian nation".) This is an original letter from an ORTHODOX Bishop, in the 1920's before the politicizing the of the name "Syriac-Aramaean" came to be. You can clearly see he refers to his Patriarch at Antioch as the Patriarch of the ASSYRIAN Orthodox Church.
This is from the Bishop, on behalf of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch, in February of 1920. Before the "AS" began disappearing from the (As)Syrian Orthodox Churches. Indeed, the Assyrian Orthodox Church in Paramaus, NJ, refused to drop the "AS" in the 1960's, and is STILL CALLED the Assyrian Orthodox Church. I've been to it. If I could post pictures here, I would show it to you.
As for Assyrian Catholics calling themselves "Aramaean-Syriac", please post a reference or even the name of anyone who would know a single Catholic Assyrian who refers to themselves as "Aramaean-Syriac". Since this nomenclature is associated with the Orthodox, and indeed that is what it automatically means when someone designates as such, I find it hard to believe an Assyrian Catholic would use the name.
This Wikipedia page would be accurate if it actually discussed these things, and if others do not add it, I will. It is academically and historically dishonest to simply ignore this history. Plus, it paints a much fuller picture of how christians in the Middle East were politicized by nationalist regimes (Ba'athist, Young Turks, etc.) and divided by MILLET (Turkish term for "religious group"). There should be a section which discusses this. Waleeta (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Waleeta

Seriously, if you keep refering to the Syriac Orthodox Church as the Assyrian, then you will not be taken seriously, and no, we are not interested in hearing stories that can be found in several Assyrian fanatic sites. And yeah, btw, my neighbours are catholics, and Aramean-Syriacs. Read Syriac_Catholic_Church. The TriZ (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Triz, I am not distorting history, and the citations are from the Library of Congress and their collection on the ensuing conferences post World War I, not "fanatical websites" of any sort. These are not "stories", this is history, which I thought Wikipedia was interested in presenting correctly. You cannot deny what happened to the Assyrian Orthodox church - as it referred TO ITSELF pre-1960's - simply because you or others are personally averse to the word "Assyrian", or the misconception that this has something to do with "Assyrian nationalism". It is not. This Wiki page is not neutral, it misrepresents the facts, it is academically dishonest.
Other than the Library of Congress letter presented above, and the book in which early immigrants from the Orthodox Church by Sargon Donabed (which reprints ORIGINAL immigration documents self-designating themselves as Assyrian), I also point you to photographs in "Assyrians, the Continuous Saga" by Fred Aprim, in which yet another photograph is shown of an ASSYRIAN Orthodox church in Israel, where the "AS" has literally been scratched out to simply leave "SYRIAN" - a picture taken a few years apart from each other. These are valid citations, this is valid history, and frankly, it seems that Syriac-Aramaean nationalism is the culprit here in denying history. No one is asking Syriacs-Amaraeans to "become Assyrian", that's ludicrous - but this is history, not politics, and for some reason it is being ignored on this page.
Once again, I do not deny the Syriac-Aramaean identity, it does exist within a particular church and within particular communities of that church (there are brothers, family members, husband and wife, from the same villages in SE Turkey, one who says "Aramaean", the other who says "Assyrian"), and even within members of this same church, there are self-designated ASSYRIANS who refused the Patriarch's change of the name in response to Arab nationalism in Syria in the 1960's. I am merely suggesting that this Wikipedia page is incomplete as it ignores this important aspect of the history. I have yet to see an academically honest or historically accurate reason as to why these facts and documents should not be included. It is a very interesting part of the church's history.
Also, regarding the Syriac Catholic Church page, it is unverified with apparently no sources. And regarding the anecdotal comment about your neighbors - I have an Assyrian friend who is a member of this church, his first cousin is an Aramaean nationalist. So which one is right? Both. The Aramaean identity exists, but so does the Assyrian, in this church. In both the Orthodox and the Catholic Syrian churches. But that's not the point. The point is being academically and intellectually honest and accurate about the Orthodox church's history. Waleeta (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Waleeta

Please keep your nonsense away from the article, no one is interest in your lies and conspiracy theories. And most important, do not present them as FACTS in the article. Also, this is not a matter of this article, if you have opionions about the Syriac Orthodox Churchs name, please take it in the article about the Church. The TriZ (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But I don't have an opinion on the Orthodox's church's name. But there is a section on "identity" here, and it discusses the term "Syriac" and "Aramaean", who belong mostly to a single church with the same name, and what the name was once,and specifically how they - the clergy - referred to the people, as "Assyrian" rather than "Syriac". Is this not important to the identity section? Or to the church history? It's fascinating, and I hope this interesting piece of church history and evolution is studied further. To omit it is intellectually and academically dishonest, and the article is incomplete.Waleeta (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The TriZ you have proven in this conversation with Waleeta that you do not know how to hold a proper and formal conversation with anyone. If you think you're right then argue your point and don't dismiss any opposing point as if it means nothing. You (through this debate) have shown to everyone that no one is able to hold a serious and educated conversation with you. - Malik Danno (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


This article is useless, it doesn't give any real information. It just keeps confusing people who are already confused. This article as with Nestorians and Chaldeans should be merged into with the Assyrian people. We don't see the Kurds having different articles for their different denominations, so why should we divide ourselves? Syriac does not stand for the western group, it stands for all Syriacs including Maronites, Melkites, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Arameans and so on.--Yohanun (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, this article just adds to the confusion. be very clear that this article concerns only adherents of the West Syrian Rite. Citing references that mention "Syriacs" is not enough, since "Syriacs" may also refer to the entire group (including "Assyrians"). It would be best to merge this into the main article. dab (𒁳) 14:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So then, Yohanun, what your saying is that the article Assyrian people should change name to Syriacs? The TriZ (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There are members within the same family which dispute whether they are "Assyrian" or "Aramaean". Assyrian Orthodox Churches were called Assyrian before they were called "Syriac" - indeed the one in Paramus, New Jersey, refused to become "Syriac" and still goes by Assyrian. The Aramaean "movement" was started by those Orthodox Assyrians living in Europe. There are many, many Orthodox Jacobites which self-identify as Assyrian. The FATHER of Assyrian nationalism was David Perley - an Orthodox Assyrian from Harput, Turkey (although he called it "Harput, Assyria" on his immigration papers to the US - see Donabed, Sargon for original document).

How on earth can this article not only not mention these facts, but discuss the term "Syriac" without discussing that this is the anglicized version of the very word "Assyrian"? People - as individuals and groups - have the inherent right to be whatever ethnicity they want to be. They are not allowed, however, to change and distort history and scholarship. What this article should state is that Syriacs-Araaeans are former ASSYRIANS who began a new internal movement to separate themselves from the Assyrian nationalist movement. Simply because - that is what happened. This entire article is ultimately meaningless.~~Waleeta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleeta (talkcontribs) 15:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Jacobite" vs. "Western"[edit]

Is the "Western Syriac" group identical with the "Jacobite" group? One term is geographical while the other is denominational. I haven't yet seen a source corrobating that "Western Syriacs" (the population, not the "Western Rite") is defined equivalently to adherents of the Jacobite or Western Rite. I have also seen claims that the term "Jacobite" is somehow considered "pejorative". Is this the case? Do we have any source supporting this? dab (𒁳) 10:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I provided you with a source stating that Jacobite is a misnomer. More importantly, it's incorrect if you refer to all West Syriacs, which include the Syriac Catholics (and a few Protestants). Jacob Baradaeaus was one of the people who laid the foundation of the Syriac Orthodox Church organization. Therefore, West Syriacs is the correct term, Jacobites only refers to the Syriac Orthodox. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


the numbers from quotable sources collected at add up to just below 300,000. I suppose this is a low estimate, but I have no idea what an upper estimate would be. The upper limit for "Christians and other" in Syria given by the CIA Factbook is 500,000. Even if we assue that most of these are Syrian Jacobites, we'll still be below one million in total. Perhaps a reasonable estimate would be 0.5 to 1 million. dab (𒁳) 11:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mm, it's hard to find quotable reliable sources about this. I would estimate the total population to more like 800-1000k. Lets say there are 400-500k in Syria, in Europe we have 80k in Sweden, 50k in Germany, I would guess on around 100k in Holland, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Austria, Luxemburg and the rest of the countries around there. Then there are Turkey, Lebanon, US... The TriZ (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the population of Syriacs in the United States quoted as "80,000"? The link leads us to the American census which actually says "Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs" are 80,000. I am sure the page does not mean to call the entire group "Syriacs", since not all belong to the Orthodox Church, and even fewer probably self-identify as such? The oldest Orthodox Church in the U.S. is in Paramus, New Jersey, and they all self-identify as Assyrian, as they refused the name change of the church 60 years ago and are still called the "Assyrian Orthodox Church". This population number should be disregarded or changed to reflect the above.Waleeta (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Title of article[edit]

I think Syriac-Aramean people is a more appropriate title of the article. Nobody today calls themselves Jacobite and scholars don't use Jacobite as a reference to the group anymore either. Where Aramean is used by some of the Church's followers. Chaldean (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User dachman does not have any knowledge in that area. He have ruined all articles and created titles like Jacobites. VegardNorman (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Typical dab; moving pages only wikly bases making a mockery out of our people. He creates all these different pages, redirects going everywhere, and the title is still not correct. What aboutg Syriac Orthodox people of Iraq? They certianly are not West Syriacs, but rather East Syriacs. I still think Syriac-Aramean people is still the right title. Chaldean (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
West and East is about the historical frontier between the Byzantine and Persian Empires. If I remember correctly, the Syriacs Orthodox in Iraq have moved there at a later stage, but still would be considered West Syriacs. Cf. West Syrian Rite vs. East Syrian Rite. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
No Benne, they are converts of Church of the East. They certianly did not just move there, as there are many historical Syriac Orthodox monasteries that date back to well over 1000 years old. They don't speak Turoyo, but a more similar dialect as Chaldeans-Assyrians within the area. Chaldean (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Move the article?[edit]

How many is positive for moving the article into new title "Syriac people" ? VegardNorman (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think Syriac-Aramean people is more appropriate, since there are those within the group whom consider themselves Aramean. Chaldean (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
i think Syriac people would be the best title. do you agree? VegardNorman (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind it, but the important thing right now should be working on the article. Your doing a good job, keep up the good work and watch out for those spelling mistakes. Chaldean (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Im trying working as much as i can on the article. Also trying to work on article Assyrian people. My english isnt very good but im trying my best. VegardNorman (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

no. "Syriac people" is ambiguous and just adds to the confusion. I don't mind if you move it to "Syriac/Aramaeans", "Jacobite Syriacs" or what have you, but not to unqualified "Syriac people": this will just perpetuate the problem, the misunderstandings of scope and the edit warring. --dab (𒁳) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What about "Syriac/Aramaean people" ? VegardNorman (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

90,000 in Baghdad?[edit]

This figure does not add up; Baghdad was thoroughly destroyed by Hulagu Khan. When Timur attacked Baghdad, it had only 20,000 people killed, according to the Timur article, "After the capture of the city, 20,000 of its citizens including Muslims were massacred". I am not using this as a reference, but considering how people like to inflate numbers (especically since 1.5 million + several thousand minorities does not equal 3.5 million total) and looking at this incosistency, I must reject this fanciful claim of 90,000 Christians in Baghdad. I mean, come on people, most cities at the time had less than 90,000 people and to clam that there were 90,000 Christians? Despite being heavily destroyed by Hulagu? Hulagu's destruction of Baghdad, whilst occured ages ago, was not repaired. Tourskin (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis[edit]

In regards of using this as a source: 1. First of all, is a website that lets anyone to write articles about anything. In this specific article, Megalomatis does not cite not one source as a reference to the numbers or to anything for hte matter of fact. 2. How credible is this guy when he suggested in putting Iraqi Sunni Arabs in Concentration camps and forcing them to learn Aramaic? [[2]]. Chaldean (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Circular references[edit]

I have removed the citations to ... That site is not reliable as a reference in Wikipedia, as it uses Wikipedia for its information. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad Sources[edit]

I see a number of references to -- which doesn't appear to be a reliable source. The history bit bizarrely seems to be based on a Latter Day Saints web site, http://www.spiritus-temporis is also still in the references. None of these are reliable sources. There seems to be almost nothing sourced from contemporary scholarship.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Population numbers[edit]

I really think the 4 million total population number is beyond from reality. If there even were 4 million, where do they live? I have recentally changed Lebanon from 900,000 to 37,000 since that is what the source says. Discuss please. Chaldean (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac are atleast 3.3-4 million but the article is describing only the aramean-syriac.. atleast 50-60 % of the syriav group are selv identified as Western Assyrians or assyrian-syriac.. The Western Syriacs (Assyrian-Aramean) are maybe approx 1 million --WestAssyrian (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, this article isn't just about those who call themselves Aramean, but all Middle Eastern members of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Churches (be it those who call themselves Aramean, Assyrian, or Syriac.) Those in India are not part of this article. Chaldean (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You have right Chaldean the article is about all Middle Eastern members of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Churches (be it those who call themselves Aramean, Assyrian, or Syriac.) but ArameanSyriac must be neutral and describe the assyrian-syriac, syriacs, armaean-syriac in his article! what do you suggest we can do? --WestAssyrian (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please lets discuss one issue at a time. First the population numbers. Chaldean (talk)

Same goes for the Assyrian people article. There aren't 3.3-4 million Assyrians (and that CIA source, doesn't say much). And there aren't 4 million Aramean-Syriacs either. However, the majority of the Western Syriacs is no doubt Aramean-Syriacs whatever WesternAssyrian may say.

Okey.. the population number of the Syriacs cant be more then 1 million.. Sweden: 60-80, Germany: 50-100 Holland: 30 USA: 30-50 Syria: 700 Iraq: ?? Turkey: 3-15 I dont think there is more maybe in Belgien, Swizer, France but the Syriacs arent so many in those country --WestAssyrian (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you prove it?? that the aramean-syriac are the majoriy?? there are atleast 50-60 % Assyrian-Syriacs we are many Assyrians in the syriac group --WestAssyrian (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the 3-4 million in the Assyrian people page is misleading as well, but we need to discuss that in that page. We have lots of work to do. I hope you guys now can start to work with each other. Chaldean (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean the population number in the Assyrian people is right because the article are describing the Western Syriacs, Chaldeans and the East Assyrians.. We are in the article mention all the groups --WestAssyrian (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

But even if you add those numbers, its not 3-4 million, by far. Anyways back to this topic;

Syria 710,000 [3]
Turkey 15,000 - 25,000 [4] [5][6]
Iraq 92,700 [7][8]
Lebanon 37,000 [9]
Jordan 70,000 [10]
Israel 50,000 [citation needed]
United States 80,000 [11][12][13]
Sweden 80,000 [14][15]
Germany 50,000 [16] [17]
Netherlands 30,000
Switzerland 10,000
Egypt 8,000 [18]

If you add these, you get 1.2 million approx. Nothing close of 3-4 million. And there is problems with some as well - the 80000 in United States is misleading, as that is a number for all Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people, not just Syriacs. Chaldean (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats right! you can change the aramean-syriac article and rewrite approx 1 million --WestAssyrian (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to wait and see what others users have to say, specifically AramaeanSyriac. Chaldean (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes.. and after this we must discuss the aramean-syriac article.. it must be more neutral or else we can make another article about the Assyrian-Syriac also called Western Assyrians --WestAssyrian (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Omg. i jsut wrote 100000 words here in discussion and then it dissappeared. WestASsyrian where are you fromAramaeanSyriac (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Khon, I know how much that sucks. In the future, whenever your done writing something, highlight it and copy it before you click save page, incase it disapears. Chaldean (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So angry!!! Well here is little of what i wrote. User:WestAssyrian,User:Chaldean,User:The TriZ we should all cooperate instead of reviving each other and starts editswars etc. We Should cooperate and build up assyrian-syraic-chaldean-aramean articles togheter. Instead of replacing Syriacs with Assyrians or Assyrians with Syriacs, add instead Assyrian-Syriac and then link to article Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac that Chaldean created, which is perfect. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, in the future, whenever there is a problem, just raise the issue in the cooparation board we have created it. We will discuss it and make the most fair decision. Now lets discuss the population numbers. Are there any sources for Norway and Denmark? I know there are some there. Chaldean (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, where can we find it?AramaeanSyriac (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Good question, I dont know, I was thinking maybe you Nordic people would know :) Chaldean (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I also want to work together! but in many article the assyrian word are replaces with syriac as you say assyrian-syriac is perfect.. --WestAssyrian (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm haha i will search. There is lack of information on finding population sources on assyrains,syriacs, arameans because of many of them comes for example from turkey to sweden and is recognized as "turks". AramaeanSyriac (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, there are many more in Brazil as well. Chaldean (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As I just wrote (which dissappeared because WestAssyrian wrote something not relevant (omg third time now)), there are just a few of ous in Denmark and Norway (and Finland, if any there). Therefore, no need to count them. The TriZ (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The defact rule by Wiki says if there are more then 1,000, then they should be listed. Now if we can find any reliable source, it would be great. Chaldean (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, i think they are at most maybe 1000-2000 in Norway or Denmark. But im not really sure AramaeanSyriac (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2008

Well im going to look for sources. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we all agree for now that there isn't 3-4 million Syriacs worldwide? I think the max is 1.5 mil. Chaldean (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There are not 3.3-4 million Western Syriacs I agree that the max is 1.5 mil --WestAssyrian (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That is really hard to know, if there are 3-4 or 1,5. Adherents estimates 4mil AramaeanSyriac (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually its not really hard to define between 4 million and 1.5. Adherents is just a website that quotes other websites. I am certain in its 3-4 million estimate, it is including Indians in India. Its hard taking Adherents seriously since it gives multiple numbers, and as low as 100,000. Chaldean (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No its not counting with indians. Indians are around 5.6 million AramaeanSyriac (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So then how have we concluded there are 4 million Syriacs? Where do they live? The numbers are just not adding up. Chaldean (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Chaldean, is very difficult to know where all live because in many countries we are counted as turks or arabs AramaeanSyriac (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because its difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to have Wiki reflect reality as close as possible. Come on, you can't really believe there are 4 millions Syriacs. We added the numbers and we got 1.5 millions. Even if you wan't to add another 500,000 for those who are "labeled as Turks or Arabs", you still get 2 millions, and not anything close to 4 million. Chaldean (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
its impossilbe to know. Adherents soource says 4milion. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There arent 4 million Syriacs! there cant be its impossible, the whole people Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean are maybe 4 million! the people in the Syriac Church are maybe 1 million not even close to 2 million! --WestAssyrian (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Provide a source, wikipedia is not based on your thoughts. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your source tell us 1-1.5 million! so what with the 4 million?? you can se it for yourself calculate.. have you read your source?? --WestAssyrian (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

its impossilbe to know. Adherents soource says 4milion - Adherents also says 100,000 and 800,000 among others. Why choose the highest one? That is pure propaganda. Your right its impossible to determine an exact number, that is why we should estimate to the closest way of reflecting reality. I think 1.5 - 2 million is rational. Chaldean (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes and those sources you are talking about is like 20-30 years old. The number we should use is the newest one. and not numbers for the group 20-30 years ago. And no its not pure propaganda, i use the newest numbers given, and those numbers are 4million. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2008 (UT
Your not being reasonable here. I don't know where you got the "20-30 years old" information from, but you know very well your wrong in this debate. There are no 4 million Syriacs, and if they were, I'd like for you to provide a neutral source, and not a Church's own numbers. Chaldean (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you should first provide me a source there it says 1,5 - 2 million AramaeanSyriac (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chaldean this is just propaganda this is wikipedia and you must show us neutral sources! there arent 4 million Syriacs! were do they live then?? --WestAssyrian (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Adherents is a neutral source. And as long that source tells us 4 millino, then the the 4 million in the infobox will stay. Provide a source and then we wil change. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
think you should first provide me a source there it says 1,5 - 2 million - Maybe your not reading what I'm writing. The total population is the addition of all the numbers listed of different regions below it. Take a look at other ethnic pages - Albanians, Greeks; the total number is the addition of all the numbers below it. Adherents isn't even a source. Its a website that quotes other sources. So if your going to back your source then at least know what your source is. Adherents says 4 million, but it also says 300,000. So what is the reason given you using 4 million instead of the 300,000? If your going to say Adherents is a neutral source and should be used, then fine, change it to 300,000, since that is what adherents says. If you really want to insist on using Adherents then we should use both numbers; 300,000 and 4 million or the average of the two. And again I came up with the 1.5 million to 2 million with adding all the numbers we have. If your not willing to change it then I think we should get a third opinion. Chaldean (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
wich one is best; 1,5-2 million or 1,5-4 million AramaeanSyriac (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Khon, why are you not addressing all the points I'm bringing up? If you wan't to use adherent's 4 million, then you must just its 300,000 as well. As I have said many times, both numbers do not reflect reality, and all indications tells us that 1.5 - 2 million is the closest we can be towards the actual number. Chaldean (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


All of these false pages as Syriac-Aramean people or Chaldean people should be merged into the Assyrian people, we must not divide ourselves. If one does not approve the Assyrian name we can change the article's name to Assyrian-Syriac-Chaldean people or something else. This is not acceptable! --Yohanun (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A united page will never happen. Too much vandelism. Chaldean (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not merge Chaldean people and Assyrian people inte Syriac-Aramean people? Do you understand the problem. Also no one would accept that. And a united page will never happen.AramaeanSyriac (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear - historically, it should be all under "Assyrian people", and the "Syriac-Aramaen" page should be discussed in the context of this group being ONLY made up of some communities of the Orthodox Assyrian Church in Europe and Lebanon which self-designate as such (making it an ethno-religious group, rather than an ethnic group, especially since many self-identify as Assyrian). The only reason as it stands now that these pages are divided from what I have seen, is because of academically dishonest revisionism by some Wikipedia users who link the Assyrian nationality as being ONLY a "nationalist movement" inspired ethnic designation rather than an historically accurate one, so they choose to divide members of other Assyrian churches, ignoring history. Vandalism by these Wikipedia users seem to be what is stopping Wikipedia from having an intellectually honest and historically accurate Assyrian page.Waleeta (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it shouldn't. And it is called Syriac Orthodox Church. The TriZ (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted a repeated sentence: "Self-identified Aramaeans are often called Assyrians by Assyrian nationalists...." was written twice. The second sentence remains, with its reference.Waleeta (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Divding us and creating seperate articles for our CHURCHES and not PEOPLE will just benefit our enemies and we all know who they are. I suggest we merge all our churches (Syriac-Orthodox/Catholic, Chaldean, Nestorian, Melkite and Maronite) into one page which could be named the Assyrian (Syriac) people or the Syriac people. Syriac is a neutral word which all of us are familiar with (Suraya/Suryoyo). In the article we could explain the name problem in our nation.--Yohanun (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahono, you mean that we merge all articles Assyrian people, Aramean-Syriac people,, etc into one article ? AramaeanSyriac (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have embarrassed ourselves, it is enough! Everybody is laughing at us. We must merge all our sects and ideologies into our single article where we include our nation which is comprimised by Assyrians, Syriacs, Arameans, Maronites, Chaldeans and Melkites. This is our nation and we should merge all into one article now!--Yohanun (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Yet again, the least controversial name is "Syriac", everything should be put int that article, and the different names would then be explained from there. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


I take point with the citation for: "Self-identified Arameans are frequently called "Assyrians" by Assyrian nationalists, which is deeply resented by many Arameans and Aramean communities who don't want to be identified with the ancient "Assyrians". It leads to an opinion piece by a philosophy professor in Southern California who has no academic background in anything related to Christians in the Middle East, Assyrians, Syriacs, or anything related. He is a philosophy professor who created an online journal using "Friesan" techniques, it is not peer reviewed, and is his opinion only. It is not a valid citation. He has no citations and admits on the introduction to the Friesan site that many topics are non-annotated and are for discussion only. I can, however, provide a new paper released last month by a Cambridge scholar in the field regarding the modern language of these Christians, and why it is "Assyrian" and not "Aramaic". Waleeta (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Waleeta

I have removed the "Assyrian nationalists call the Aramaeans Assyrians" sentence. As I discuss above, the citation is unacceptable. It is also misleading: it alludes to the idea that only "nationalists" call themselves Assyrian, when that, in fact, is not the case.Waleeta (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Dont remove parts without discussing. "It is important to note, however, that at the turn of last century, the Patriarchate and the church was self-identified as Assyrian....." How relevant is this? Please tell me how that is interesting in this article? Also dont use as a source, as it is not realible and accepted as a neutral source. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Bethsuryoyo is not the source, a League of Nations document is the source, they just happened to be the ones who uploaded the document. I tried to discuss, but no one discussed the issue. It is very relevant to this article, because it is a part of the church's history, especially with trying to protect (what they then called) the "Ancient Assyrian Nation" after the Genocide to seek protection for the people.Waleeta (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, I have remove the non-neutral sentence which refers to "Assyrian Nationalists" calling Aramaeans "Assyrian". The citation is the opinion of a random person on the internet, and is not a valid source, and again, it implies somehow that only "nationalists" are "Assyrian", therefore making the identity a politicized one rather than an actual identity, which in turn is "Aramaeanism" forcing their definition on "Assyrian". It is not valid. I have added, again, the paragraph regarding the letter from the Patriarch and Bishop of the Orthodox Church to the Paris Peace Conference. It is an integral part of the church's modern history, and their attempt to intervene on behalf of the people after the Genocide to ensure their safety. There is no reason not to add it.Waleeta (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, don't put in your conspiracy theory and do not present it as a fact! I removed it and I urge you to stop with what your trying to do. A document (which could have been manipulated) from what is possible written by a person isn't enough, when there are so many other sources saying the opposite. Though I agree with you concerning the sentence you removed, almost the same senctence was removed from the Assyrian people article also ("Self-identified Western Assyrians-Syriacs are frequently called "Arameans-Syriacs" by Arameans fanatics, which is deeply resented by all Assyrians and Assyrians communities who dont want to be identified with the ancient "Arameans"."). The TriZ (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Triz, you seem to be manipulating the page for no reason. It is not a conspiracy theory, and anyone can claim any "document" is "made up". Are we going to go down this route? This is an original document, it is in the Syrian Archives, and the League of Nations Archived in DC. I live here, I have seen it with my own eyes. Short of inviting you along, there's little more I can say about it. Stop removing the paragraph, this really isn't supposed to turn into a "fight"! It is part and parcel to the identity section which ALREADY discusses the Church's name change, and this gives insight to another piece of the puzzle. Actually, I may also add it to the Syriac Church page, and also the Assyrian Genocide page as it has direct connection to both. It is a piece of church and church identity history, again, there is no reason for it not to be included. However, if you feel there is something to be added, deleted, or edited in terms of language, or if you want to change something, or if you believe it is better suited somewhere else in the article, let's discuss it.Waleeta (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

TheTriz, thanks for agreeing re: the "Assyrian Nationalist" argument. I think AramaeanSyriac reinserted it, I re-removed it. It is an opinion posted by someone online, specifically, as I stated above: a philosophy professor in Southern California who has no academic background in anything related to Christians in the Middle East, Assyrians, Syriacs, or anything related. He is a philosophy professor who created an online journal using "Friesan" techniques, it is not peer reviewed, and is his opinion only. It is not a valid citation. He has no citations and admits on the introduction to the Friesan site that many topics are non-annotated and are for discussion only. This does not belong in a Wiki article.Waleeta (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Waleeta, instead of coming here and removing parts that you dont like, you could easily take it up in the discussion, so we can solve it togheter. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
AramaeanSyriac, it isn't that "I don't like" the sentence. Wikipedia isn't about personal opinion. I first commented on teh citation, well over two weeks ago, and no one responded, then I said I would removed it, because it is an invalid citation and an invalid insinuation. So my apologies for not waiting long enough. so we can discuss it: the first issue is that the citation is not a valid one, as I already explained where it leads and who the author was. Nowhere near close to a valid source. Second, by saying "Assyrian Nationalists" call Aramaeans "Assyrian", it insinuates that only "nationalists" consider themselves "Assyrian", which is incorrect and invalid. I think it should be removed, as one cannot say that "nationalists" call Aramaeans "Assyrian".Waleeta (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

About the removed sentence, one may add it again, though it needs to be reformulated. And again, you write,

"It is interesting to note, however, that at the turn of last century, the Patriarchate and the Church was self-identified as Assyrian; in this original letter, we can see the Orthodox Bishop Afrom Barsoum refer to his nation as the "ancient Assyrian nation. Indeed, before the name change to "Syriac" in the 20th century, one church in the United States kept the church's original name, the Assyrian Orthodox Church of Paramus, New Jersey."

Interesting? This is an encylopedia, read NPOV. Self-identifed as Assyrians? No proof of that, only a document were he according to that letter refrains to the people as Assyrian, again it could have been translated wrong, and there are other evidence that he has called the people Aramean, and if he even said that, it says nothing about the churchs opionon on the matter, only his own. One church kept the orginal name? That's POV again, since it didn't "keep" the original since its never been shown that the Syriac Orthdox Churchs name is Assyrian. Only that those who built the church, named it Assyrian Orthodox Church. That has nothing to do with this article however. The TriZ (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Triz, it can be reworded. It is not a translation, it was written in English. Even if it had, I may add, been translated, though it hasn't, the word "Syrian" was written, along with "Assyrian", so clearly both words were used in whichever original language you believe it may have been written. It is an original, English-language written document. It is certainly NOT his own opinion, he was there on behalf of the Patriarch, at the bottom of the document, in French, reads his name, his position, and then as "the Delegate of the Patriarch".

This Bishop identified the adherents of the Syriac Orthodox Church, in this letter, as "our Ancient Assyrian Nation", in February of 1920. There is more literature on this, please give me some time to offer the complete citations in the books, plus I would have to upload documents, showing that pre-1960's, it was a pattern that adherents and clergy used "Assyrian". Clearly, an important fact as a part of this history. The "Assyrian" identity of the Orthodox Assyrians pre-and-post Genocide can also be seen in those Jacobites which fled pre-Ba'athist Syria to the United States and just before the Ottoman Empire dissolved - they continued to self-identify as Assyrian - the same people who accompanied the Orthodox Patriarch to the Paris Peace Conference. The thriving community - the largest community - in the US, are the descendents of those people, pre-name change of the church, and they live in New England. See here:

This is an Assyrian Orphanage and school association for the United States - note the "About Us" section. It was founded and still run by Orthodox Assyrians.

The issue of the disconnect between the name change of the Assyrians/Syriacs is quite obvious. It should be reflected in this article. I have reworded the paragraph, I hope it is better suited. I will also add the language and the sources to the Syriac Orthodox Church page, perhaps the Genocide page as well, although I will have to upload documents first.Waleeta (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As Aramean-Syriac says, the phrase isn't relevant for this article. And most of what your writing doesn't make any real sense. We know there are alot of people whom are calling themselves Assyrians, and obviously some of them immigrated to the US and built churches and organisations like most Syriac Chrstistians has done in Europe, the US, and the rest of the world. That is no new news! Before the name change to Syriac Orthodox Church, the churchs name was Syrian Orthodox Church. It has never been Assyrian Orthodox Church. One single document written by a Bishop (again, someone has maybe translated for him, or the document could have been manipulated ( isn't a reliable source)), doesn't prove anything really. And also concerning the genocide, in the document he says the genocide should be called the "The Christian Massacres". Following that up, the massacres was on christians and not a specific ethnicity. So calling the genocide on Syriacs for "Assyrian Genocide" is therefore completly wrong. The TriZ (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The document is real, in its original, and again, the Syrian and US National Archives are the source, not "bethsuryoyo", who just uploaded the image of the document. But apparently I have to go back to the National Archives and print out a copy and upload it myself? This is the original document, you can see by the seal and signature, no translation was done.
This is not the only document in which the Orthodox refer to themselves as Assyrian, and mostly certainly the people who referred to themselves as "Assyrian" did not somehow invent the identity in their heads, as we all know clearly that the church was central in identity and even political life during Ottoman rule. If that phrase is not relevant to the identity section - the fact that OFFICIALLY the Patriarchate's delegation to Paris refers to their adherents as "Our Ancient Assyrian Nation", then nothing in that section is relevant. This is becoming political from your ends, as it is an academically sound phrase and source, and an integral part of the history of the identity. Ignoring the fact that the ENTIRE group of "Aramaean syriacs" was called Assyrian by the same authorities who, 40 years later, changed the name to Syriac, is indeed incredibly important and relevant. To not include it is simply ignoring history, and omitting something which expands the understanding of the evolution of this identity.

Please stop playing politics with academics. Again, this DOES NOT negate the Aramaean or Syriac identity in anyway.Waleeta (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets say that all Syriacs (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaledeans, Nestorians) called themselves Assyrians, and they all talked about their ancient Assyrian nation, what does that say about the Churchs name? Nothing. The section is showing why the people today refers to themselves as Aramean-Syriacs and not Aramean-Syrians, that is why that piece of history about the Syriac Orthodox Church is included. And what I'm trying to say with that the document could have been translated is that maybe the bishop didn't speak English, so someone translated for him. And again, if one church in USA has the name Assyrian Orthodox Church, has absolutely nothing to do with the article. It is not relevant in any way. We already have an Assyrian people article. The TriZ (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, and I will leave it as is. However, I still believe that, as the "Aramaean Syriac" people of today were once referred to as "Ancient Assyrians" by their own Bishop (who spoke English fluently, and again, this is NOT a translation)is an important and integral fact, which I believe adds to the article rather than diminishes it. I hope that between us all at some point we can figure out how to incorporate it so that it fits suitably with the entire article. Basically, even if it "has nothing to do with the church's name", it most certainly has something to do with the Aramaean/Syriac identity and its evolution, don't you think? Is that not important enough to include here?
Unfortunately, many photographs, letters, and documents are not online, but I will work on it, and perhaps once they are we can further portray the full evolution of the Syriac and/or Aramaean identity, and improve the article.
Also, there is a church in Israel also called the "Assyrian Orthodox Church". Clearly, an evolution of name, which we cannot honestly deny, has had an affect on adherents. This is true for all the Christian millets in the Ottoman Empire.Waleeta (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never denied that there may exist some churches with the name "Assyrian Orthodox Church". Like I never have denied that there are people who self-identifies as Assyrians. I just don't believe there are any purpose of writing it in this article. And I think your looking at it in a wrong way, one church is called "Assyrian Orthodox Church", but there are hundreds and maybe thousands of other churches that are called "Syriac Orthodox Church". The TriZ (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but I am not mentioning it to compare numbers, I am mentioning it because it means something in its history and evolution (for example, why mention the name change from "Syrian" to "Syriac" without any discussion of this "Assyrian" issue in the adherents and some of the actual churches?) See what I mean?
One interesting picture I have is an "AS" literally scratched out of the on the church building sign, to leave "Syrian" only. That's pretty telling.Waleeta (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean this picture [3]? It has already been discussed. And concerning that, administrators and other users in Swedish wikipedia did a great job, talking with Arabic and Israelan users, asking them to take this picture and asking about the translation [4]. It says in Arabic "Deir as-siryan", wich means "the Syriacs" (monastery). But the Israelean/Jerusalem offices translated it to Assyrian. Wich obviously wasn't popular amongst the members of the monastery. So it only shows that there is a naming conflict. The TriZ (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


There is an entire section which discusses identity, and it includes the name change of the church about 50 years ago, and in essence a defining of identity, for the adherents of the Orthodox Church (from "Syrian" to "Syriac" which the article correctly mentions). I am re-including the fact that ONE church (tht I know of so far) in Paramus, New Jersey, specifically made a decision not to change the name to "Syriac" from its original name, "Assyrian", when the church was opened almost a century ago by ASSYRIAN Orthodox who had come from Turkey before and during the Genocide of 1915. This is absolutely relevent.

Regarding the letter to the Paris Peace Conference, it shows that pre-name change, that at this official conference under the direction of the Patriarch, Bishop Afrom Barsoum referred to adherents of the Orthodox Church as "our Ancient Assyrian Nation", and henceforth referred to all "Syriac speaking Chritians" as such: Nestorian, Chaldean, and Syrian....clearly meaning that he attests these are millets rather than ethnic groups of one single Ancient Assyrian Nation.

This is meant to expand the readers' understanding of the history of the evolution of identity, pre and ost Genocide, Nationalism, and Ba'athism, in the middle east. It is absolutely relevant, and can be reworded if need be, but for the FIFTH time, AramaeanSyriac specifically, stop removing this academically sound and NEUTRAL piece of history. It expands the understanding of "Aramaean/Syriac", rather than inhibits it, and i believe this is the very point of academia. One cannot include the history of the Aramaean and Syrian names without so much of a mention that indeed, "Assyrian" was also an identity at some point in time, namely, less than 100 years ago. Waleeta (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It is time to delete these pages. We should merge all our articles into each other and make one article "The Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean people", where we also include the Syriac Maronites. Is not this better than dividing us this much? Making our enemies laugh at us?--Yohanun (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to merge all articles into one. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible only if you want it to be. I will delete all of these articles and create a new one, a Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean people's page so that we will not embarrass ourselves any more than we already have.--Yohanun (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Creating an "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" page creates further complications: is it a page of "millets" of the Ottoman Empire? Is it a page that describes an ethnic group? Then why use religious designations? Is "Assyrian" a religious designation or an ethnic one? It doesn't make any sense.Waleeta (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Waleeta, in regards to your first post; be bold and do write. As long as you bring reliable sources for contriversal statements, their is nothing wrong with doing so. Nobody can remove reliable sourced information just because they don't like it, Admins will simply stop them from doing so. Chaldean (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctors of the church[edit]

Was Bardaisan even recognised as an orthodox? He was a gnostic, Mor Ephrem also wrote articles against Bardaisan about him not being orthodox enough. And the Syriac Orthodox Church doesn't use a title as "doctor of the church" I think. These were all just great Saints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syriac Christianity (talkcontribs) 14:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "3000turabdin" :
    • *[ SOC News report ,] ''He was documenting life in the Tur Abdin, where about 3,000 members of the Aramean minority still live''.''''
    • *[ SOC News report ,] ''He was documenting life in the Tur Abdin, where about 3,000 members of the Aramean minority still live in''.
    • [ SOC News report] ''He was documenting life in the Tur Abdin, where about 3,000 members of the Aramean minority still live''.
  • "abgar" :
    • This event is described in Eusebios from Caesares work ''Church-history'' (I.13;II.1) ( 300 AD) ''
    • This event is described in [[Eusebius]]' ''Church-history'' (I.13;II.1) ''

DumZiBoT (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


this article discusses the adherents of the West Syrian Rite exclusively. The Syriac Christians as a whole are discussed at Assyrian people. Article needs cleanup to reflect this. --dab (𒁳) 12:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Syriac Christians as a whole is not being discussed at Assyrian people, that article is about those who identify as Assyrians, if you believe it isn't then clearly your mistaken, but for all means, you may show in which way the Syriac Chrisitans as a whole are being discussed at Assyrian people. Again, this article is not about West Syrian Rite exclusively, it is about all those who identify as Aramean-Syriacs and it's not restricted to only the West Syrian Rite. The TriZ (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

you obviously did not read the article. It is about the entire group. Viz., the 3 million figure cited in the Assyrian people are the exact same population as the 3 million figure cited here. There aren't 3 million Assyrians and then another 3 million Syriacs, there are 3 million Syriac Christians, whatever you prefer to call them. The Assyrian people article is the one article dedicated to that population. We can't have two articles on the same group, sorry. I frankly don't give a damn about the pathetic and petty ethnic infighting within this group, I am just trying to enforce Wikipedia rules. This has been going in circles for months, and another round of filling talkpages with hate-speech or opinion-mongering isn't going to change anything. --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No one gives a damn about what you think about this "ethnic infighting", so you can save your rascist rants for yourself. You obviously have no idea about how many Syriac Christians there exist, so why even bother? The Assyrian people is dedicated for the ethinc Assyrian group. This is for the ethnic Aramean-Syriac group. The cited 3-4 million may have been high (and they can be adjusted), but they are more close to reality than that 3,3 millions call themselves Assyrians. I'm getting tired of your involvement in this debate because of your obvious lackage of insight in these matters and the fact that you alone, with some help of your lackey-warriors, are trying to force a name on a people who rejects it. The TriZ (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Assyrians here[edit]

Time to play your game Triz. Source number 30 is totally bogus - it says there are 5,000 Assyrian Neo-Aramaics, NOT Aramaen Syriacs. Removing this... Gabr-el 05:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

iT does not mean that they are assyrians. They speak a language called assyrian neo aramaic. So if you speak turkish, does it mean you are a turk? AramaeanSyriac (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
And where do u get this nonsense idea from?
Aren't you the foolish one who confuses religion (Syriac Christianity) with a non-existant Syriac race? The Syriacs are Syrians. And the Syrians are ASSyrians not Aramaeans. How can you be so stupid as to say that the words Syrian and Aramaen are related! You don't have any sources for this. Just because someone like Mar Ephrem spoke in Aramaic, doesnt make him an Aramaen!Gabr-el 15:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


There is no mention of Aramaens, only Syriacs, which means they are Syrians (Assyrian corruption of the word)Gabr-el 05:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

For all you stupid people out there, I recommend learning English to see how closely Syrian and Assyrian are, and how distantly related the words Aramaen and Syrian are.

Then I would like you all to use your newly founded English reading skills to take a look at this article:

Gabr-el 15:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not refer to people as "stupid". It tends to cause upset. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, but this debate has gone out of hand a little. Gabr-el 15:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I generally find that walking away for a while helps calm me down in such a situation. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, the debate will still be here if you all give it a rest for a week or even a month. Just a suggestion. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Gabrel there is 1000 of sources teling us that syrians, syriacs are arameans. Please stop your assyrian propaganda. The only title on the article is either Aramean-Syriac people or Syriac People. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Now you are doing it. Please do not refer to other people's arguments as "propaganda", it's not civil. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Theresa please can you check his edits, User:Shmayo, User:Suryoyo othuroyo, User:Am6212 . all those users are just removing everything that has to do with Aramean-Syriacs, everything that does not "fit" them. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't know enough about the topic to do that, generally speaking (though not always) when multiple people are doing the same thing, then they may well be right. Or at least have some validity. I suggest that you argue you point politely and thrash out an agreement. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well in this case they are just as right as the Nazis. "Repeat a lie often enough and the people will believe it.".The TriZ (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes that would explain how you call yourself an Aramaen. Gabr-el 22:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

2 things should happen ... either this page gets deleted or is merged with the Syriac Orthodox Church. If you look at the sources in the Aramean-Syriac People you will find very very very little mention of Aramean-Syriac People. You will rarely even find mention of Syriacs as a people. What majority of the souses used on this page use is Syriac Orthodox Church and the people of these articles are Syriac Orthodox members not Aramean-Syriac people!! Malik Danno (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Malik, please be serious. Syriacs is mentioned more than Assyrian people. Google it yourself. The TriZ (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

you're going off topic once again! Stay on topic please and deal with what I said don't bring other subjects in this. But since you mentioned it what aspect of Syriac is more mentioned ... the "ethnicity"???? I am part of that syriac which is mentioned more... I am part of one of the Syriac churches so that Incldes me and all the members of my church as well. Also you said before how Syriacs call themselves Suryoyo while Assyrians call themselves Othoroyo. Let me tell you something ... Assyrians call themselves Suraye more then they call themselves Atouraye. According to us we ARE Suraye. Also a Suraya is the same thing as Suryoyo ... just one is in the East Syriac and other is in West Syriac. When you say you are Suryoyo, and I say I am Suraya then we are essentially talking about being the same people.
But again that's beside the point. What I was trying to say was this page's sources talk almost exclusively about Syriac Orthodox Church and its members, NOT "Syriacs" or "Aramean-Syriacs" as an ethnic peoples! Malik Danno (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It is you whos going off-topic, no Suraye is not the same as Suryoye. Suraye in West Syriac is Suroye, which people use as a word for "Christian". Suryaya is the word in East Syriac. And do as I said, google it and check what you get for hits, most is about the people. The TriZ (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If thats true then the follow-up question will be why aren't those sources used instead of the sources with use Syriac Orthodox Members and not Aramean Syriac people? Which is the reason this page should be deleted or merged with Syriac Orthodox ChurchMalik Danno (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There are sources, I have provided you with sources below, I can provide you with more even so. But you have to have some use for them. The TriZ (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


As explained at Names of Syriac Christians, the names "Syriacs" and "Assyrians" refers to one and the same group. Any reference cited here that mentions "Syriacs" or "Syriac Christians" is in fact discussing the very same group already covered at Assyrian people. This is not permissible. See WP:CFORK. There can be an article about a clearly defined subgroup, i.e. the "Jacobites" or "West Syriacs", but as long as this article keeps using sources about "Syriacs" in general, it is duplicating the scope of an existing article. This is not permissible. See WP:CFORK. --dab (𒁳) 08:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The only article that should be deleted is Assyrian people because arameans and assyrians are all Syriacs. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
You want to go to Talk:Assyrian people and place a {{move}} request. If you do that properly, I might support you. I have explained this about a dozen times: if you are unhappy with an article title, you need to seek consensus to move it, you cannot go and create a counter-article. Please reply with a posting showing that you have understood this very simple point. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Gabr-el 14:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

it is my considered opinion that the Assyrian people article should be moved to Assyrian/Syriac people (now a redirect) to account for these disputes. The problem is that people with AramaeanSyriac's point of view do generally not appear to be capable to swallow their anger for long enough to understand the issue and submit a proper move request. Instead they indulge in random rants and revert-wars, which eventually gets them blocked and leaves the issue unresloved. So, AramaeanSyriac, if you want to achieve anything beyond annoying people, get a grip on yourself, try to grok the situation as it presents itself for the purposes of Wikipedia, and present a proper move request. --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the article and redirect it to arameanism? -- Why do you want to do that. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

how about you take a minute to actually read what has been said immediately above? --dab (𒁳) 09:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So you mean that we move all articles into a new article called Assyrian/Syriac people? AramaeanSyriac (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
How about you actually pay attention to what is said above and quit playing games? Treat this like a intelligent discussion or it's going to be one without your involvement. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


This has gone on enough. Page is protected until folks come to a real consensus. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

can't we just ban those who are unrelentlessly vandalizing various pages without reaching a consensus or going through a proper discussion format. Those who are somehow unable to participate through an educated discussion and who are unwilling to respond and acknowledge the opposing side and instal their POV in all the pages. These people need to be banned before they continue to vandalize wikipedia with their POV. Malik Danno (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
In theory, yes, they can be banned, but it's a process that has to be done right. Is it clear vandalism, or is it a content dispute? From what I can see, it's a content dispute. Please explain to me how restoring an article that was essentially deleted without clear consensus (the kind that you'd expect to find at AfD) vandalism? I'm not saying that the article is justified to continue to exist, nor am I expounding a particular POV on the subject. What I am saying is that what needs to happen is that everyone should take a collective breath, and then someone propose here what they think should happen to the article (or, I'd be satisfied with someone starting an actual AfD discussion). Once everyone has had a chance to discuss (not scream, mind you), if a clear consensus is achieved fine. Remember, that at AfD, "no consensus" is a default "keep". So, please start the discussion, and please keep it civil. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm for a discussion about this, but Malik & Gabriel & the rest doesn't show any type of respect to me as a person. I mean I've been called dumb and a fool, I've been talked down to, and I have even been death threated. I'm trying to have a discussion with them in the talkpage at Assyrian people, but they neglect everything I say and point at sites like (Assyrian International News Agency). I am more than willing to start a serious discussion and debate but again, I'm not here to constantly be undermined.

I also urge for this article to be moved to Syriac people. Mainly on the ground that the people aren't commonly called Aramean-Syriacs, they are called Syriacs (even though they may believe in a Aramean-identity).

Republic of Turkey Ministry of culture and tourism, "the Syriac people, who of Aramaean origin and who were living...",[5].

Doors to cultural dialogue, "The Syriac people are an ethnic group..." & "Syriac people are also known as Jacobites and Syriac/Arameans.", [6].

Turkish Daily News, "Mardin, once the home of Turkey's Suryanis, or Aramaic-Syriac people,...", [7]

""Starving Armenians": America and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1930 and After, by Merrill D. Peterson (2004) p 65 (and more), "...and that other nationalites under Turkish rule - Greek, Syrian, Arab, Armenian -...", [8]

If course there is much more sources that can be provided, there is for example this letter to the UN by SUA (Syriac Universal Alliance) [9]

I can also provide sources that shows that the people has been called Syriacs (Syrians before the namechange) for a very long time, contrary to what some "Assyrians" have written here. Which include this letter by President Woodrow Wilson from 1917, [10]. I currently have uploaded a .jpg of the letter here [11], which I recieved from the Syriac-Mesopotamian library([12]) in Örebro. He writes, "...for the aid of the stricken Armenian and Syrian peoples."

The TriZ (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Aramean-Syriac people are not "Assyrian people". The ancient assyrians and arameans were two different groups. The syriacs, which also are known as arameans, is descendants to the ancient arameans. They are not descendants to the ancient assyrians. There is more than 1000 sources proving that. Also this article has grown to a very good article, containing parts such as history, identity, culture, traditions etc. None of those parts are repeating, in whole or part, the text of other article(s) or section(s). It is impossible to merge this article with "Assyrian people". There will be alot of problems with the identity parts, history parts, culture parts etc. It will lead into large vandalizm and reverts on both articles from the assyrian group and the aramean group. In countries such as Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Lebanon and parts in Syria, the people are known as Arameans. Also worldwide, the majority in the Syriac people are connecting their ancestry to the arameans, and not to the assyrians. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec)ArameanSyriac, you need to understand something really important to Wikipedia: Arguments such as what you just made, while maybe accurate, don't count for much, because you have not cited any sources/references. See TriZ's note above? He wisely included a number of references. You said that there are more than a please go and pick the best five, make sure they meet the requirements of WP:RS, and include them in your discussion. The biggest problem that I can see with this whole mess is that people here talk much but don't back up their words with reliable, neutral refs. If you really want to make your point here, don't give long arguments, give short summaries and a decent list of refs. That will do much good towards resolving the issues. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Akradecki, sure I agree with you about not banning people just for the hell of it. But you have to understand, if some people are always getting in the way of improving pages and always vandalizing pages to meet their POV then they don't belong on Wikipedia. Only until recently did some here stop their vandalism on the Assyrian page (even after i provided sources which were agreed upon). Also look at the discussion here The TriZ had with Waleeta . You are telling me that we are suppose to debate reasonably with such mentality as that? No one is able to hold a proper debate against someone sooo driven with nationalism. I bet you that if you get 5 doctors in this field they would not be able to hold a proper debate with him just because he thinks his POV is right and everything other than that is just propaganda.
The TriZ stop acting like you're the victim here. We all participate in proper and formal discussions and you always go on with name calling. Show me once were i called you an idiot, death threats and anything else bad against you. I wouldn't do that because I know how to discuss issues properly.
About your sources ... You have provided me with Turkish sources ... now there are many things wrong with Turkish Sources 1) They are not trusted by any scholar in the world 2) They have very anti-minority articles (armenian, greek, assyrian etc.) 3) they constantly bend the truth to meet their POV 4) If you are wiling to tell me that these sources are reliable then I can easily show you articles on these websites that deny the Armenian/Assyrian/Greek genocides ... if you say these sources are reliable and agree that they tell the truth then do you also agree with those notions? your source [8] proves absolutely nothing ... what are you trying to prove ... i thought that it was syriacs are decendents of ancient aramaeans and that source (the only reliable one) clearly doesn't.
I have to add that in the discussion on Assyrian People page I had provided many CREDIBLE article sources (BBC, CBC, New York Times, USA Today etc.) and User:Helikophis said that I can't use news articles as sources .... AND YOU AGREED WITH HIM!! so why are you now using news articles to prove a point? Please stop being a hypocrite in that case.
AramaeanSyriac We have heard that Aramean-Syriac people are not "Assyrian people" SOOO many times now. and we have come to a conclusion that its YOUR POV and we can also agree that me alone saying you guys are assyrian is my POV. So the only credible solution is by sourcing our points. You always say you have 1000 sources to back you up yet you have shown us none. Stop saying points that you think are right without any reliable sources ... no one will take you seriously that way. Malik Danno (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Malik, that tone is not helpful. First, an edit dispute, no matter how heated, is not vandalism, so please stop throwing that word around. What would be more helpful here is to tone the words down, and focus on proposing something. You may have very valid points, but please put them into straight-forward suggestions. Propose, in one sentence, what you want done with this article. TriZ listed some refs. How about you list 5 that back up your proposal? Things will only get better when everyone here stops focusing on the personalities, and instead focuses on the article. So...your proposal? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You must understand that you and me used our sources to prove different points, you provided sources to news-agencies whom talked about some Assyrians (in whatever context), and with this, you wanted to prove that the entire group is known as Assyrian and write it in the article. I on the other hand provided my sources to show that that Aramean-Syriacs are often refered to as only Syriacs. Source 8 was to show that Syriac (Syrian) is a nationalty and a ethnicity, which is also confirmed by the letter of Preident Woodrow Wilson. About the Turkish sources, what does Turkey gain on calling Syriacs the decendents of the Arameans? And not calling the group for Assyrians? The reason they don't admit the genocide is on the other hand, obvious. So your arguments doesn't hold that Turkish sources aren't reliable. Also, I've never said that you called me dumb or anything like that, even if you've been talking down to me, but Gabriel has called me those things, and i've been threaten by some other guy, but that's not important and let ous not focus on such things. And about Waleeta, he and I later discussed some issues in a better way, but at first he was editing the article and saying the Syriac Orthodox Church name was really Assyrian Orthodox church until they changed name in the 1960s (if course without sources, since there are no sources backing up such a claim). The TriZ (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You know what Ak, you're right. about what my proposal is, I just want to see this page improved in reference to sources and factuality. I have first started dealing with the Template of this page and once the template issues are dealt with I will go on with the actual page. Akradeck I ask you to come and participate in the discussion in the template, because you're input will be appreciated. - Malik Danno (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Aramaic-speaking Christians has been calling themselves for "Suryoye" now for the previous 1800 years, and everytime they called themselves for "Suryoye", they were referring to an ancestry that had given them their mother tongue and the venerable language of their liturgy and literature for the previous 1,800 years, the Arameans.[John Joseph, Assyria and Syria: Synonyms?].

The term Syrian is often incorrectly connected to Assyria. During the second century B.C., the learned Posidonius, a Greek who had lived in Syria, wrote: "The people we [Greeks] call Syrians were called by the Syrians themselves Aramaeans... for the people in Syria are Aramaeans". Posidonius, who undoubtedly was aware of the confusion that existed in his day between the terms "Assyrian" and "Syrian", knew well that, whatever the etymological relationship between the two names, geographical Aram (Syria), and geographical Assyria were two different geographical, ethnic, and cultural entities. One may argue that the word "Syria" is derived from "Assyria", but surely that does not transform geographical Syria and the predominantly Aramean inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent into Assyrians. If "Syria" is a truncated form of "Assyria", it simply serves as a reminder that geographical Syria was once ruled by the ancient Assyrian empire.John Joseph, Assyria and Syria: Synonyms?,

And here are some of the sources telling us that the Syriacs were earlier called Aramaeans. Catholic Encyclopedia: Syria,, The Syrian-Orthodox Mor Jacob of Edessa (Urhoy) (present-day Urfa in Turkey, †708) says: "It is in this same way also we the Arameans, that is to say the Syrians", Another East-Syrian lexicographer Bar Bahlul from Bagdad (†963) explains in his Syriac (Aramaic) dictionary the name "Syria": "And the Syrians were formerly called Arameans, (but) when Cyrus ruled over them, from then on they were called Syrians.", *Brock, Sebastian (9/9/2002). The Hidden Pearl: The Aramaic Heritage. Trans World Film. ISBN 1-931956-99-5.  Check date values in: |date= (help), Dionoysius Bar Salibi the Syrian-Orthodox bishop of Amid (Diyarbekir, Turkey, †1171), also called the star from the 12th century, says in his book ‘Against the Armenians": "The Armenians say: "From whom do you descend - you who are Syriacs by race?" Against them we will say: Neither do you know from whom you descend....It is we (Syrians) who have enlightened your authors and revealed to them that you are descending from Togarma....As to us Syrians, we descend racially from Shem, and our father is Kemuel (the) son of Aram, and from this name of Aram we are also called sometimes in the books by the name of "Aramaeans"., The Syrian-Orthodox Patriarch Mor Michael the Great of Militene (Malatya, Turkey, † 1199 AD) writes: "The Children of Shem are the Assyrians, the Chaldeans, the Ludians and the Arameans who are the Syrians, the Hebrew and the Persians.". The same author says about the Mesopotamian history” The kingdoms which have been established in antiquity by our race, (that of) the Aramaeans, namely the descendants of Aram, who were called Syrians” , Syriacs, The Greek writer Posidonius (150 BC) says in his work.. "The people that we (The Greeks) call Syrians, are called by themselves Arameans..........Because the people in Syra are the Arameans", The term was changed from Syrian to Syriac in referring to the (Syrian Christian) people and language so as to avoid confusion with belonging to the country of Syria. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

ArameanSyriac, do you know the difference between a primary source and a secondary source? WIkipedia uses reliable _secondary_ sources. Please read Wikipedia:RS, and maybe Wikipedia:PRIMARY You just can't go about using ancient historians as sources. _They are not reliable_. They get things wrong, a lot! In addition to that, they are generally self-published, or of an obscure publication history. Give us some sources written after the First World War, please! Helikophis (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

the sources presented by AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) may be of historical interest, in which case they may deserve mention at the existing Names of Syriac Christians article. This doesn't give the user any right to keep edit-warring, creating content forks and recreating deleted content. AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) has repeatedly shown they have no respect for Wikipedia policy, nor any interest in following proper procedure. The only answer to protracted behaviour of this sort can be blocking the offending account from editing. This has gone on long enough. --dab (𒁳) 21:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


Proposal 1[edit]

To fix the Template ( of this page. Find more reliable sources, and stop the skewing of figures of population from the sources to the actual template. Malik Danno (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

An utter mess[edit]

There's a mess ALL OVER Wikipedia, where "Syriac" is being used synonymously with "Aramaic". "Syriac" is restricted to one language of the Eastern branch of the Aramaic languages.

Furthermore, "Syriacs", when used by those who propose it to refer to a supposed self-identifying ethnic group, should only be used on those who in fact speak the Syriac language, and NOT to designate all Aramaic-speakers. Thus, for example, the Lebanese Maronites are not Syriacs, since they spoke Western Aramaic, which is NOT Syriac. It would be like claiming the Dutch were Germans. They speak related languages, but they are different languages, and they do not identify as the one same group. If your going by language, most Yemenites today speak Arabic, whatever their religion (including the Yemenite Jews, before they moved to Israel), and thus Yemenites are "Arabs", but are you also going to classify Yemenites who speak the pre-Arabic Mehri, Soqotri, or Socotra languages as Arabs despite not speaking Arabic? If you position is that a Syriac people exist, why then would you classify as Syriac those who don't speak it? Just because they are Christians, who may be totally unrelated to you, but happen to speak an Aramaic language?

And what about the Aramaic-speaking Muslims of Maaloula who speak Western Neo-Aramaic, as do the Christians related to them of the same village. They both identify as the one same group, albeit of different religions. Together, as the one ethnic group, they are not "Syriacs" either. And what about those Jews who speak Barzani or Hulaulá, for instance, which are also Aramaic langauges? I suppose they're members of this supposed ethnic group called "Syriacs". Or not? Does this supposed Syriacs and/or Aramean people including Christians, Muslims and Jews alike? Or is it just the Christians?

In essence, there is no modern, single, self-identifying, all-encompassing ethnic group consisting of all Aramaic-speakers. Aramaic-speakers are a diverse collection of different groups, each with their own identities, and languages (Syriac, Turoyo, Mlahsô, Hulaulá, Barzani, then also those who speak a a language of Western Neo-Aramaic, however few they may be when compared to the others who speak languages from the Eastern branch).

Aramaic-speakers today, and more-so in antiquity, were/are as diverse as the collection of different people who are today speakers of the different varieties of Arabic (which ARE different languages, even if not by name, which actually is the case for Aramaic). To collectively call Aramaic-speakers "Arameans", and especially to call them "Syriacs" in particular (which should be confined to Syriac-speakers only, if they are in fact a self-identifying group) is simply erred.

Ethnic groups have throughout history formed from the merging of different peoples, and there's nothing wrong with that. But in my opinion, this "Aramaic people" and "Syriacs" (including not only Syriac-speakers) is not a group which actually is. It's a group which some aspire to create. Again, I have no problem with that, so long as it is addressed in that light.

Let's not pretend that all the people mentioned in the main article somehow actually are a single self-identifying unit. I mean, just look at the mess of identity that was caused by having all the different Arabic-speaking people suddenly labelled "Arabs". The situation brewing here is too much like that. The only difference is that dominant religious component among the groups of people who were Arabic-speakers was Muslim (to top it off, of various denominations and sects), with Christian and Jewish minorities. In the present case, the dominant group are adherents of Christianity (of even MORE denominations and sects), with Jewish and Muslim minorities. You guys are creating the exact same mess.

That's my five cents. Al-Andalus (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Amen brother. Helikophis (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Having Aramean and Syriac connected by using a -, was wrong and I should've stepped in when user ArameanSyriac began this. I didn't really think about how the two words are completly different from one another. Compounding these two words needs to stop and we need to figure out another option. Chaldean (talk) 06:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a single ethnic group, the Syriac Christians. Their article resides at Assyrian people. This group is also called Suryoye (after the native Aramaic), and by some members of the diaspora, especially in Sweden and Germany, "Aramaeans". There is one article on the dispute, Assyrian naming dispute, and one on the group, Assyrian people. The US census now calls the group "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" to reflect the dispute ("Aramaean" is absent because there is no "Aramaeanist" lobby in the US, just in Europe). They were forced to this because we are here looking at the only ethnic minority on the planet who cannot bloody well agree among themselves what they would like to be called in English. Pathetic, but true. We can't have two articles on one and the same group just because there are two names for it. Hence, this article belongs turned back into a redirect. Which is the best title for the article on the group is a matter of discussion at Talk:Assyrian people. If you contribute to such a discussion, you may have an effect on the way things are handled. If you keep creating counter-articles, you will have zero effect on Wikipedia content in the long run. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

May I propose we merge everything, keep the article name as Assyrian (the most widely known name by third-party neutral sources) and say that we also call ourselves Syriacs, Chaldeans and Aramaens. That should kill all birds with one stone. Gabr-el 17:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you're completly wrong Dab. The Syriac Christians are not a single ethnic group. The article Assyrian people only reflects those who identify with the Assyrian name. Suryoye is used by the Western Syrians, which translates to Syriacs. Assyrian is Othoroye or Asorie. In Sweden the Syriac translates to Syrianer, which is the term used by the majority of the group. Aramean is not a term that is used, even though the people believe in a Aramean identity. The thing you don't understand, and this is also why urged for this article to be moved to Syriac people, is that a very few call themselves Arameans, in Germany, Holland and the countries around there is the place they call themselves Aramean in the countrys language. In the Middle East, the West Syrians call themselves Syriacs in the language of the country they live in, for example Turkey - Suryani. Most of the West Syrians call themselves Syriacs and believe in a Aramean identity. Most of the East Syrians believe in a Assyrian identity. This article is about the the West Syrian group aka the Syriacs. What Gabr-el says is just silly, the only reason you get more google-hits on Assyrian is because of that most people in the US and UK are East Syrians, therefore all of their own magazines are in English. And a newsreporter doesn't give a shit about the namingconflict, they call the whole people what the person they are intervjuing are talking about are calling themselves. And as I said, since most people in the US and UK are Assyrians and because of the Iraq war and the difficulties for the christians over there (where East Syrians form a majority) most reportes use the name Assyrian. This doesn't mean that Assyrian is the most common name. Furthermore, saying that all Syriac Christians are one single ethinc group is like saying all Roman Catholics are the same ethnic group. The TriZ (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(dab)There is a single ethnic group, the Syriac Christians. - Don't you "Syriac Christian" me. I know who I am and we here in Iraq call ourselves Assyrian. What my relatives call themselves in United States doesn't have anything to do with what we call ourselves here in the homeland. Wikipedia says it simple but you keep hidding behind the bushes and make things more complicated.
(Triz) This doesn't mean that Assyrian is the most common name - It does in English language. Which is all we are concerned about here in English Wikipedia. Iraqi (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, if Assyrian has more hits in google, that doesn't mean it is the most common name in English. But what says that Assyrian people even have more hits in google? The TriZ (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How else does one determine what is the most common name. Triz, please be logical. The most common name is the most used name. And according to Google, Assyrian is the most used one. Gabr-el 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, according to Google, but as I explained most Assyrian organisations webpages are in English because of that most Assyrians live in the US and UK. Check the hits you get with "Assyrian people", most of them goes back to different Assyrian organisations and some also to the ancient Assyrians. So what I'm saying is that the number of hits you get is misleading. The TriZ (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats better Triz, now that you have explained yourself. However, if most organizations of Assyrians are in English, that strengthens our claim that Assyrian is the most well know word in the English language. Besides, we have American and British sources; you have neither. Gabr-el 05:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Check the hits you get with "Assyrian people", most of them goes back to different Assyrian organisations and some also to the ancient Assyrians - Wrong. "Assyrian people" only brings up Assyrians of today, not anything about Ancient Assyria. Just google it and look for yourself. Its the same with "Assyrian Christians" too. If you look at what Wikipedia says, it tells us that to use the most common English term, and we find out what that is by 1. google hits 2. book hits 3. scholar paper hits 4. other enyclopedias. All of these methods have over and over been showen that only one term is the most common in the English language. And thats Assyrian people. Iraqi (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

At the opposite it shows that Syriacs is the most common name. The TriZ (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, I have also come to the considered opinion that "Syriacs" (or "Syriac people") is the best title for the article on this group. See the review of usage frequency here. With a sidenote to the genius who imposed full protection on this article,
Find sources: "Aramean-Syriac people" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
zero google scholar hits. one google books hit for "Aramaean (Syriac) people". zero google news hits. Well done! You have managed to lock down a fork of an article at a name we have established is not in use in English, at all. Way to go to follow your mandate of helping implement Wikipedia policies. Among them, let's say, WP:NAME? Heard of that one? --dab (𒁳) 16:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to have such an attitude, he had all rights to lock the page since you redirected it without seeking any consensus. And the "fork" reason doesn't hold up, you don't decide wheter all Syriac Christians are one people or not. This article clearly has a different content than the Assyrian people article. The TriZ (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"we" being who? You are trying to write an article about a group of 4 million who already have an article. So much the worse if the "content is different", that makes your content fork an actual pov-fork. If you have issues with the existing article, address them at the existing article's talkpage. I don't even have an opinion on them, except for the obvious point that Wikipedia can't have counter-articles. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

""we" being who?"?? The fact is that there is three groups, one that callthemselves Syriacs (Arameans), one that call themselves Assyrians and one that call themselves Chaldeans. Each group needs to have their own article since they obviously goes under different names. The TriZ (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

this is where you go wrong. Ther are two factions, both claiming a different name for the same group. "Chaldeans" are different, they are a bona fide subgroup, and have long had their own article at Chaldean Christians (note how they don't number 4 million). This has long been up for anyone to read up on, at Names of Syriac Christians, Assyrianism and Aramaeanism. An -ism isn't an ethnic group. Just asserting the opposite doesn't change that.
If, as you claim, "Arameaens" and "Assyrians" are two distinct groups, which group, pray, would you place Ephraim the Syrian into? References? --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is were you clearly go wrong, Chaldean is an ethnicity to, some people here seems to believe that all Chaldeans are saying they're Assyrians, this is not the reality.

Are you insinuating Ephrem the Syrian were an Assyrian? (Ed. Joseph Amar, A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Serugh, Patrologia Orientalis 47,1, p. 155)

"He who became a crown for the entire Arameandom, (and) by him we have been brought close tl beauty;"

Or just ask Garzo. I'm sure he has more refs, refs showing that Mor Ephrem selfdescribed himself as Aramean. The TriZ (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(dab)"we" being who? You are trying to write an article about a group of 4 million - if that is what this is about, then by all means just delete the numbers. Obviously their aren't 4 million people in the world that say they are Aramean. Its only a faction of the entire group of Syriac Orthodox people. Why is it not ok to have their own article like Chaldean Christians. And no triz, we Chlaean is not an ethnicitiy , and if you don't believe that we don't consider ourselves Assyrina, then PLEASE BY ALL MEANS, I invite you to come here to Iraq and show you around and you can ask the people yourself. I will give you food, shelter, whatever you want, just come see for yourself - that is if your really interested about the subject. Iraqi (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Again, I diagre this page being deleted, maybe moved to Syriac people, but it needs to be clear in the beginning that its only about people of the Syriac Ortho/Catholic church, and not of Maronites or Indians. The de facto use of term for the entire group is Assyrian, as we have gone through this before. Theirfore, every other pages, such as Assyria diaspora and History of the Assyrian poeple need to have Assyrian in the title. Its per Wikipedia naming dispute. Iraqi (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, firstly thanks for your offer, but I know people who say they are Chaldean, and who doesn't even know about Assyrians. Please, we have seen other people writing here in Wikipedia saying their ethnicity is Chaldean and not Assyrian, so don't deny that there are alot of people who believes their ethnicity is in fact Chaldean. The term for the entire group is not Assyrian, this is what the whole debate is about, please show me where "we" have gone through it before. If "we" include you, Elias and Sarukinnu, please spare ous the nonsense then. The TriZ (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The ones you see randomly here on Wikipedia live in the West - its the same thing with your people. Its only a fraction of the entire population. Of course your not going to see any Syriac Orthodox in Iraq or Syria to say they are Aramean as the same with my people here. These new names are vastly only used in the West, and you already know this.
I don't think this page needs to be merged with the Assyrian people. If we can have a Chaldean Christians page, surely we can have the same with the Syriac Orthodox/Catholics whom don't consider themselves to be all one people (Assyrian.) Dab is again trying to create some kind of unity among all these people. Dab, not all these people consider themselves to be one kind of people, let alone calling themselves the same name. So for you to force some kind of name on them to group them, for the sake of simplifying, is wrong. Keep this page, and here we can talk about Syriac Orthodox diaspora, Syriac Orthodox culture , and so on. This would hopefully prevent creating fork pages of Assyrian diaspora. Things are better the way they are now. If you created one page for everything, you would have constant vandelism and so on.
(triz)The term for the entire group is not Assyrian, this is what the whole debate is about - I advice you to not seek this. Because your interest will simply lose. I'm telling you, its common sense, just look at all the methods Wikipedia asks us to use, and all of them show that Assyrian is the prefered term used in English. Iraqi (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You say this alot, but you haven't showed ous nothing about it. Your words are losing meaning as your lies are growing. This article is not about the Syriac Orthodox, it is about the Syriac people. Arameanism exist in the Middle East in a greater extent, and you are fully aware of this. And just cause you say you live in Iraq doesn't mean you know everything about the people there, Wikipedia is not the place for your "original research". It is very clear that some people only believes in a Chaldean identity, the thing is that Assyrians like you are trying to hide this ([13] Chaldean website). This is indeed very upsetting. The TriZ (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Syrianskavis copy.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Syrianskavis copy.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


This protected redirect to Assyrian people needs Rcats (redirect category templates). Please modify it in the following manner:
from this:

#Redirect [[Assyrian people]] 

to this:

#Redirect [[Assyrian people]]
{{This is a redirect|from alternative name|printworthy|protected}}

Thank you very much! – Paine (Climax!)  21:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, but why is the blank line necessary? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Redrose, and thank you! Oh, I suppose we leave one line blank for editorial readability, like when we leave a blank line on article pages between the last section and categories. The software supports this on redirects now, whereas you may remember that in the past the Rcats had to be added on the top line and linewrap if necessary. Thank heavens for the devs, eh? – Paine (Climax!)  22:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)