Wikipedia talk:Assyrian-Syriac Wikipedia cooperation board

Welcome

Well I hope good things come out of this. Chaldean (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Integration into existing projects

ok, we need to integrate this into existing structures. Notably Wikipedia:WikiProject Assyria, which appears to be a pov-pushing project (taking as its scope both Ancient Assyria and Syriac Christianity, an arrangement that isn't likely to make sense to anyone but Assyrian nationalists). Then there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Syriac Christianity work group, Wikipedia:WikiProject Iraq and Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(taking as its scope both Ancient Assyria and Syriac Christianity - you need to stop labeling Assyrians who adhire there history as POV and nationalist. By your view, every Assyrian in this world is a nationalist for ebracing there heritage. This is silly. Chaldean (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

no. history is history and nationalism is nationalism. All this hullabaloo over an "Assyrian" vs. an "Aramaean" flag is nationalism. Embracing your heritage would mean practicing the Syriac rite, speaking the Aramaic language and studying the history of the Christology disputes. All this prancing about with flags and ancient empires has nothing to do with your "heritage", it's just a belated reflex to 19th century trends and politics. dab (𒁳) 08:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain on your talk page, you should try to make the distinction between nationalism, and ethnic identity. For example, the fact that there is a Romani flag, and that they identify with India, doesn't turn them into nationalists. Identification with an historical ethnic group (be it based on history or on myth), is something different from ethnic nationalism. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 08:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

--Mr Dbachmann. I am sorry but this person obviously has no idea about the interconnectedness of ethno-national groups culture and identity. Would you say that all my friends from the USA who arre 3rd generation Irish and have an Irish flag on their house, go to Irish gaelic class...go to catholic church, eat potatoes and meat, consider themselves the descendents of the ancient Celts, and are fascinated by Druidry...are nationalists? Ill tell you they care nothing about the politics of Ireland. They are Irish. By your definition they are nationalists....so for you...they should be going to Catholic church in Latin...becoming priests...speaking English (since it was the "nationalists" that brought back Gaelic) and just eating their potatoes and meat with no Ireland flag and never saying they are Irish...just good Americans. That was your absolutely flabergasting comments logic carried through from Assyrians to the Irish. The Assyrians are always accused of being nationalists because people WILL NOT ACCEPT that they are indeed Assyrian. That is not the fault on the Assyrian...its your fault. And it is not for you to tell Assyrians who and what they are...and you certainly should not be giving definitions of nationalism. It was a disaster. --Suryani kadim (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like some advice as to how we can frame the Syriac Orthodox Church and her name change last century, along with a general discussion on the disconnect between the West Assyrian who are "Assyrian", and those who identify otherwise. For example:

 - Most of the original Assyrians who came to the West post-Genocide were, indeed, members of the Jacobite Orthodox church, and self-identified as "Assyrian" on immigration papers
 - They named "Assyria" (not Turkey) as their country of origin on their immigration papers
 - They published the first "Assyrian" magazines
 - They established the "Assyrian American National Federation", which still exists today
 - The first Assyrian political writings regarding statehood and human rights issues for Assyrians was written and published by Jacobite Orthodox Assyrians in New England
 - Their church in New Jersey refused to name change of the church and it is still called the "Assyrian Orthodox Church".  
 - There are League of Nation documents which show Orthodox Bishops referring to the nation as the "Assyrian" nation.

How can we incorporate this part of the history in the last 100 years into these discussions? There is NO academic reason to leave these out, only political ones, so please, let us keep this academic. It is a fascinating part of the history of the modern day Syriac Orthodox Church, and the disconnect and evolution of the identity of their adherents.Waleeta (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Goal

We need a clear guideline on how to deal with this naming nonsense. A consensus should be carved out on this board, and recorded at a guideline page, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Assyrian/Syriac-related articles). dab (𒁳) 10:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that is what I have a section called consitution. We all need to vote on certain things that we can all agree apon. For example, not moving a page like Assyrian genocide without a concent here on this board. Chaldean (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

this mostly surrounds issues of naming, particularly article titles. We cannot just "vote" on things. All solutions will necessarily respect Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I have created Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Syriac) outlining the status quo and the nature of the problem. This should be developed like any other Wikipedia guideline page, discussion goes to Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Syriac), and recommendations need to be backed up with reliable sources, ideally style guidelines of major English language publications.

Thus, if somebody wants to move a particlar article, they will first have to come to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Syriac) and present plausible evidence that the suggested title is preferable based on the usage of notable English language publications.

The rough outline of the status quo is as follows:

• "Assyrians" is the widely used term in English. This is true for post-1945 sources, but may at the moment undergo a change.
• "Syriacs" and/or "Suryoye" are the only arguable alternatives. They see less frequent usage, but are more neutral. This is a matter of weighing WP:NPOV against WP:UCN. NPOV would suggest "Syriacs", UCN would suggest "Assyrians". There is room for debate here.
• "Aramaeans" does not see any significant use in English (unlike Aramäer in German).

dab (𒁳) 16:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Like the Syriacs call themself Aramäer in Germany, the Syriacs in Sweden calls themself Syrianer. And I believe the Syriacs in Holland, Belgium, France etc. also have a special name in the countrys language. The TriZ (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

sure. but luckily, we only need to establish terminology for a single language, viz. English. That's difficult enough, as it appears. dab (𒁳) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What i'm trying to say is basically that Assyrian seems to be the more common name, but there are some reasons for it, 1. The ancient Assyrians (You can't search on modern Assyrians and not getting some hits on the ancient) 2. Syriac-Arameans has so many names and most common is that Syriac-Arameans don't call themselfs Aramean but Syriacs (though they identify as Arameans), and Syriac was previously Syrian, which is now mixed up with Syria. The TriZ (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree whit The TriZ. The name Syriac is only 50 years old, and the name Assyrian is like 4000 years old. VegardNorman (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian may be 4000 years old, but in English it has only been used to describe an existing people since the 19th century. Likewise in Arabic and Syriac, there had always been a separate term for the ancient Assyrians and the contemporary people: Nestorian, Chaldean or Syriac. This is a difficult problem to resolve since the notion that all these groups were Assyrians (rightly or wrongly) is a relatively recent phenomenon. You can say the same thing for Aramaean. It is no coincidence that these ideas emerged in the nineteenth century. This is why I personally do not like to speak of all historical figures from the Syriac Churches as Assyrian (or Aramaean). Ordtoy (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This again is incorrect. The problem is that when translating into English the terms Suroyo, Suryoyo, Suraya, Suryaya, Suryani, etc (Ashuri and Assuri aside)...they chose to make that Syrian. So now "The word Assyrian in English has been used to describe a people from the 19th century..." Yes. But prior to that what contact did the English have with the "Suroye, Surye" in the Middle East? None. How much academic literature was done by English scholars on the Near East prior to that time?...Almost none. Thus yes it has been used IN ENGLISH since the 19th century? Were u hoping it to be used in Beowolf? or perhaps Chaucer? This is a silly argument. When encountering these people they were called Assyrians in English....and When they were called Syrian (as in the case of Horatio Southgate....he was corrected by the Jacobites and Armenians to use Assori since THEY THEMSELVES(ie the Jacobites) said they were the SONS OF ASHUR in the early 1800s in HARPUT. --Suryani kadim (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore the term Athuraya is a synonym to Suraya. How many times must it be pointed out that in the Neo-Assyrian period the term Surayu was seen as frequently as Assurayu and Ashurayu to refer to an Assyrian. It is a fact. So while the term in old Aramaic (under Persian influence for the satrap of Aturia) for Assyrian...Athuraya was not a necessary term to use for an Assyrian population (who was probably mostly not literate) when they had been calling themselves Surayu (a/0) for thousands of years.--Suryani kadim (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

While everyone is stating there opinion, I want the ones who are not very educated on the issue, to know the position Assyrians hold today (as it is explained in Assyrian people) is one that goes as follows; yes Ashuraya re-emerged 16-19 century, but prior, all these groups refered to themselves (as most do til this day actually) as Suraya. And Assyrians fearly claim, a claim that is supported by a few notible scholars (see Assyrian people), that Suraya is clearly derivided from Assuraya (the word Assyrian in Aramaic.) So when you guys say only been used to describe an existing people since the 19th century please do be aware that it is far more complicated then that. A fact that all historians do aknoledge is that this group of people are indegenious to the land for well over 3,000 years. Chaldean (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we are all aware of the Assyrian->Syrian etymological argument, which seems so simple in English but is much more complicated when you look at the original languages. I'd disagree that it is "clearly derived" since there are opposing views, but let's not get into that. What I once tried to explain to EliasAlucard is that whether Assyrian and Syrian are etymologically related is not necessarily important when we talk about ethnic origins and definitely isn't important when we talk about identity. My example was that proper nouns like Latin, Latino and Ladino all have the same etymological roots but refer to three separate ethnic groups (with some interbreeding of course). The point is that it is difficult to point to a single ethnic origin for the Syriac Christians that is certain since no such identity was carried through from ancient times to the present. Syriac Christians inhabited a vast area from the Mediterranean to Iran, so who knows what peoples mixed in! Regards Ordtoy (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good post, but you still didn't confirm my point (which is what I was trying to get everyone to say here;) this group's history goes further then Jesus's time. Chaldean (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "Syrian"/"Syriac" isn't the best term, but "Assyrian" is definitely an incorrect translation for "Suryani". Ordtoy (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Discuss a compromise recommendation for Wikipedia usage at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Syriac). dab (𒁳) 08:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian genocide

As Syriac people refers to both groups assyrians and syriac/arameans, why not move the title ASsyrian genocide to Syriac genocide?. 300 000 syriac/arameans were killed during that genocide, then why call it assyrian genocide VegardNorman (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia's policy. Title of pages are corollated with what the subject is known mostly as in the English Language. Your intentions are pretty clear, and writing encyclopedic articles isn't one of them. Chaldean (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

can you both accept that our "Assyrian people" article is on the entire group' of "Syriac Christians", including "Syriac-Aramaeans"? If there is a subgroup of "Assyrians proper" (Eastern Assyrians), they'll need a separate article. dab (𒁳) 14:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He won't accept that. His motives not obvious enough for you? "SYRIACs history has nothing to do with the assyran." He is here to create a new ethnicity, a new "nation." What you see from him is exactly the reflection of what has occured in Northern Europe within this community for the past 50 years. These guys, Syriac Orthodox of Europe (not all of them of course,) want to distinguish themselves from the rest of the Assyrians. He is here to change Wikipedia's articles into another http://www.aramnaharaim.org/ propaganda website. "the syriacs are an ethnic group. they are descendtans to arameans not asssyrians - your right dab, teenagers on high hormonial level. Chaldean (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-identified Aramaeans are frequently called "Assyrians" by Assyrian nationalists, wich is deeply resented by many Aramaeans and Aramaean communities who dont want to be identified with the ancient "Assyrians". [1] Chaldean, since the "assyrian" thing came up in iraq, the main object for all assyrian nationalists is try to make everyone "assyrians". VegardNorman (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Self-identified Arameans" - lets discuss it. First, there is no significant, if any, population in the Middle East that are "self-identifed Aramean". They are a group within a group in Northern Europe. Creating an article to discuss their story is one thing, but trying to write history in wikipedia according to their view is another thing. And no Vegard, "the Assyrian thing" did not "came up in iraq", but rather people within your own community in Tur Abdin and Harput, Turkey.Chaldean (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do let me know when blocks are needed here. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously Chaldean is trying to appear better than he is. Except of Iraq, the rest of the Middle East, the majority is identifiying as Arameans. The TriZ (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, let me know when neutral admins are needed to regulate others, I know a few. Syriac genocide? First of all, were the Syriacs the sufferers of the Genocide or Assyrians? What were they called by the Turks who initiated the genocide? What are they known by in the world? Look at the American newspaper images, it says "Assyrians dieing everyday" or something like that. No mention of Syriacs. Do you guys even realize that Syria is a Greek misprounciation of Assyria? Tourskin (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

you just Don't Get It, do you. Try to distinguish the PEOPLE from petty squabbles over the ETHNONYM. dab (𒁳) 10:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

" Except of Iraq, the rest of the Middle East, the majority is identifiying as Arameans" - blowing hot air in wikipedia generally doesn't work. Instead, we bring reliable sources and go from there. Chaldean (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've showed you sources before, but you ignored them. Check the Aramean-Syriac people article. Tourskin, so what did the Turks call "them"? They called them Süryani, which is Syriacs! What some newspaper on the other side of the world wrote, can't be the ruler of this conflict.

So, Chaldean, how's it going creating your new country? I see the plans are that you call the genocide the Assyrian genocide so that when it gets accepted as a genocide by the world, they will have to give you a brand new Assyrian country, called Assürilands... get real. The TriZ (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No triz, it is not my "plan" to have the genocide called the Assyrian genocide, but rather that is what the incident is commonly known as in the English language. You won't be taken seriously if you continue these teenage-like accusations. Chaldean (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking in terms of BC unill today. Why would we do that? The genocide was 1914, not 2000 years ago. Syrian is absolutely not a synonym for Assyrian, if you are assuming that when your editing articles in the subject, then it is clearly your writing POV. The TriZ (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Assyrian genocide article is not even debatable. Wikipedia's policy tells us to use the most common name used in the English language - if you can prove that the genocide is known more commonly in the English language by another name, then please state your case. Otherwise, please stop trolling. Chaldean (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If course it's debatable! Why shouldn't it be? Question is, can you prove that Assyrian genocide is the most commonly known name? By google hits? It all dependes on how your searching in google. The TriZ (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, state your case about the Assyrian genocide, then we will go from there. If your not willing to do the work, then don't even bother coming here. Chaldean (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the most neutral name for the genocide would be Seyfo Genocide as the genocide is called in the syriac language. the genocide is not called assyrian or syriac genocide in our language, it is called seyfo. In turkish the name for the genocide is known as suryani soykirim. "Assyrians" in turkish is asuris and "syriacs" suryaniler. The genocide has been known as "Seyfo" in our language for almost 90 years now, then why call it Assyrian genocide or Syriac genocide. many books and scholars have used the name Seyfo, and also in sweden the genocide is known as the Assyrian/Syriac genocide. User:Chaldean and User:The TriZ, what do you think the best and neutral name would be to get both sides satisfied?AramaeanSyriac (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

ArameanSyriac, according to Wikipedia:policy, the title of the page should be what the subject is known mostly as in the English language, not what is the most neutral term. If we went with the most neutral term, then pages like Armenian genocide and others wouldn't have the name genocide in it, since it offends Turks. Now to address your points

the genocide is not called assyrian or syriac genocide in our language, it is called seyfo. - Again, your not understanding Wikipedia's policy. Its not what the subject is known as in another language, but what the subject is known as in the English Language. Seyfo would be fine with the Aramaic version of the article. So it doesn't matter what the Turkish or Swedish or Syriac name is; when dealing with the English language Wikipedia, we deal with the issue in terms of the English language. Please check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Chaldean (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, aren't you paying attention? Assyrian genocide isn't the correct name for the genocide. And really, I don't care if Assyrian gets more hits on google or whatever. You can't call a donkey for a pig, no matter if pig gets more hits on google. My forefathers didn't die for the Assyrian name. And if you can't respect that, then your spitting on what they sacrificed their lifes for. The TriZ (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a chance to make a legit case - you did not come through. I'm done with you. Chaldean (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean is just misbehaving here and being stubborn and doesn't want to compromise. People who claim assyrian ancestry don't accept the name aramaean since that name refers to the ancient arameans which they deny to be descendants of, Aramaeans on the other don't accept the name assyrian because they claim aramaean ancestry and deny being descendants of the ancient assyrians. They both have the right for self-denomination and there is nothing wrong with that. What's wrong here is that we have a situation that several groups with different names/ethnicities/religions have been victims of the same genocide. By calling it the aramean genocide you are doing injustice to the assyrians and by calling it the assyrian genocide you are doing injustice to the arameans and chaldeans who claim descent from the ancient arameans. Like AramaeanSyriac suggested another name should be used such as seyfo or possibly another name which doesn't refer to ethnicity or religious groups. That would be the most neutral solution since it would only refer to the event of the genocide and wouldn't do injustice to some groups who would fall outside the names "assyrian genocide", "aramean genocide" or "syriac genocide". That the term "assyrian genocide" is most widely used by the english is in my opinion not that surprising since anglican and other europeans missionaries were the ones who introduced that term and converted arameans and other syriac peoples to anglicism, catholicism and other europeans christianity forms. These missionaries have been the worst thing that happened to the assyrian/aramean/chaldean people. What name is used most in english is not important anymore if assyrian genocide doesn't sufficiently cover the groups that were affected (arameans, chaldeans). The most important thing is to give accurate information and that overrides the "most used in english" rule. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles dealing with the group as a whole

Recently, there seems to be a misunderstanding in the Aramaic language page. Some users want to add to the beginning sentence of "Modern Aramaic is spoken today as a first language by numerous, scattered communities, most significantly by the Assyrians" the phrase of Syriacs/Aramean. Of course, this would also legimitize adding Chaldean too. If you look, that specific page is a featured article - a article that User:Garzo has worked on really hard. To have it go in ruins by adding "Syriac/Chaldean/Aramaic" everywhere there is Assyrian in the article, would simply degrade his work. Citing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), we previously agreed not to spill politics into other pages, but rather have a page to describe the issue (naming issue) and have a separate page from the Assyrian people, like Chaldean Christians and Syriac-Aramean people to explain the "other side" of these groups story and history, and not to make it look like as if these 3 groups are different from one another. The creation of those pages does not justify going to third party articles like Assyrian diaspora or Aramaic language and adding "Syriac/Aramean/Chaldean" wherever there is Assyrian. Assyrian is there because, again under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), is the most commonly used term to describe the group. I welcome discussing this. Chaldean (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't just go on most common name, and if that is what we're going after, then how do you get to the conclusion that Assyrian is the most common name? By google hits? By counting books? I can guarantee you most hits on google is either about the old ancient Assyrians or written by Assyrian sites. It would be like me searching on Syrian, i'm getting 22,6 million hits. On Assyrian I only get 2,5 million hits. Most common name? Syrian it is. The TriZ (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Once you stop acting like a teenager and be rational, then we might take you serious again. Until then, you have shown to be unhelpful in contributing to the encyclopedia. Chaldean (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean that a teenager can't be rational? You saying that, is not rational. Therefore your not rational. Therefore we are not taking you serious. Point taken? Now start answering my question about how you came to the conclusion that Assyrian is the most common name. The TriZ (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't want to get it, do you? With Wikipedia:Naming conventions, we have created Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac). Chaldean (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for that answer, wheter you answer it here or in the naming convention. The TriZ (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Syrian v Assyrian discussion

I have moved the below discussion from the Genocide discussion as the subject is changing. I'm glad to have this dialog from reasonable people here, so let us talk about the issue academically and not emotionally. Chaldean (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"They called them Süryani, which is Syriacs" - no, it is Syrians, not Syriacs. Only the Syriac Orthodox Church denifes it as Syriac rather then Syrian since 1952. Chaldean (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, so your saying Syrian and Syriac isn't the same now? You seriously mean that when they say Süryani they don't meen Syriacs? Guess what they they called me when I was in Turkey. They for sure didn't say Assuri or Assyrian or whatever... The TriZ (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have problems with following a conversation. Suryani is only translated into the English Syriac by the Syriac Orthodox Church (since 1952.) This doesn't change what academics and scholars translate it as. I call myself Suraya (another form of Syrian,) but that isn't outright translated into Syriac. That was what Syriac Orthodox Church translated it into (so that it distances itself from the Syrian Arab Republic.) Chaldean (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Suryani" has been translated as "Syrian" for a long long time. "Syriac" is new. But for basically everyone, if the choice is between "Syrian" and "Syriac", they prefer the latter since it is much less ambiguous. As I said before, translating it as "Assyrian" is wrong. Ordtoy (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So Chaldean, really, what's your point? That Syrian isn't the same as Syriac? Tourskin wrote, "What were they called by the Turks who initiated the genocide?", I answered that they called "them" Süryani, wich is translated to Syrians wich later become Syriac. I can call myself both Syrian and Syriac, but as Ordtoy say, Syriac is much less ambiguous. So why are you changing the subject? If the Turks themselfs, who initiated the genocide, called (calls) the people Syrians (Syriacs), and the people called themselfs the same, then really, isn't obvious that "Assyrian genocide" is totally wrong no matter what some few American newspapers on the other side of the world wrote? The TriZ (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ordtoy, I have not said Suryani is translated to Assyrian, but rather Syrian is a synonym of Assyrian. Chaldean (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Syrian" is not a synonym of "Assyrian" though. Rightly or wrongly, it has a different meaning. The two words sometimes refer to the same people, but they are not used in the same way. 88.233.177.40 (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about in terms of historically between 2 BC up to early 20th century (prior to the Syrian Arab Republic). Chaldean (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that. But even then, Assyrian and Syrian were two different terms. Often, they were used to refer to the same people, but they had different meanings - and many different implications. People then were aware of the difference, just as we should be now. Perhaps there is no English equivalent of "Suryani". It certainly is not "Assyrian" and "Syrian/Syriac" is not entirely accurate either. Ordtoy (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. "But even then, Assyrian and Syrian were two different terms." - First of all, Assyrian usage began to vanish starting in the 2-3rd century and by the 6th century, it was completly not used at all, all the way up to the 18th. So how can they have been used differently when only one of them was used. Why would Aramaic speaking Christians from Mosul and as far as Urmia, Iran would be labelled as East Syrians? And why would Aramaic speaking Christians in Tur Abdin, Turkey be lablled West Syrians They certianly aren't west of what is today Syria (its territories.) So what are they west of? It clear their location is west of Mesopotamia. And thus, when the West (Romans-Greeks) were calling them Syrians, or West Syrians, they were really implying West Assyrians.

2. "Often, they were used to refer to the same people, but they had different meanings - and many different implications. People then were aware of the difference, just as we should be now" - I'm sorry I must have missed this; What is the difference?

3. "Perhaps there is no English equivalent of "Suryani". It certainly is not "Assyrian" and "Syrian/Syriac" is not entirely accurate either." - Now this is just a straight up radical view. Suryani is Turkish. Who did the Turkish call Suryani? Its population of Syrian Orthodox/Catholics. Turkish Suryani is Aramaic/Syriac Suryoyo/Suraya is English Syrian. This is common knowledge. Chaldean (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Well if you are talking about say the period between 2nd-18th centuries, then you can see that "Assyrian" was used to talk about a historical people while "Syrian" was used to talk about a contemporary people. This began to change in the 19th century as people began identifying with the ancient Assyrians and stated calling themselves Assyrian. But the two words didn't merge. Today, if you saw "Assyrian" you are taking a point of view (maybe right, maybe wrong) different from someone who only uses "Syrian/Syriac".

2. "Assyrian" and "Syrian/Syriac" (as words) are not the same. "Syrian/Syriac" generally talks about a religious identity - but not always. See 3.

3. When I say "Suryani", I meant its Syriac and Arabic cognates too. My point is that in English, "Syriac/Syrian" is sometimes used to talk about more than just Syriac Orthodox (for example, "Syriac Christians" meaning Nestorians/Chaldeans/Syriac Orthodox is not unusual). If it were my choice Syriac would mean Suyrani only, but there is a lot of people who don't use it that way. That's all I wanted to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ordtoy (talk • contribs) 13:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ort, when I have some time again, I will continue this discussion with you. Chaldean (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people seem not to realize that the ethnic names assyrian or aramean are never going to be accepted by the other group. Some sensible people have been searching for a solution by trying to introduce a new name that has no ethnic meaning. You could use syrian for example because it is based on the geographical name of the roman/ottoman(arabic?) province syria (which included iraq) and was used for all christians who lived in that region regardless of whether they were assyrians or arameans. Assyrians and arameans prior to christianity are named separately (either assyrians or arameans). After they converted to christianity, syrian was the name used by outsiders for both christian assyrians or christian arameans and syrian would have been a good name. Since the name syrian is unfortunately used now by the (arab) inhabitants of syria which came into existance after the first world war, it is no longer a possibility. After that they tried to use syriac instead of syrian to disambiguate from arab syrians but there are also objections to that name because some people don't like the connotation it has with the syriac church which not everybody belongs to. Everybody has something against one of the names. I think the new proposal of syriac is the most neutral name that has been proposed thus far. If you don't accept it then just make up a new name or something because assyrian and aramean are simply not options because they imply an ethnic group and can never be used for assyrians, arameans and chaldeans together. Arameans seem to have accepted this and support the neutral name syriac but assyrians are being stubborn and don't want to compromise. Face it. Assyrian is an ethnic group which excludes arameans and you can't force arameans to accept the name assyrian. Why dont you just compromise and use syriac or any other non ethnic or religious name. Call yourself noshe d'nahrainaye, people of the rivers or whatever but don't insist on assyrian. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems

"Chaldean" how can you work with "ArameanSyriac" user he is only destroying the assyrian pages! look at the Western Syriacs 50 % are calling themselves as West Assyrians or Assyrian-Syriacs and in his article aramean-syriac he is just describing us as modern Arameans! its very wrong! so we will not work with him and the rest antiAssyrians! WestAssyrian (talk)

Khon, please try to understand that we need to work together here in Wikipedia, in order to make better articles regarding our people. As I have said to ArameanSyriac, it is important to try to understand what the other side is coming from and work from there. And yes, I agree with you, I am disapointed in that the Aramean people page has not yet confrunted the issue of that there are Syriacs whom consider themselves ethnic Assyrian and its history Assyrian related. I haven't interfired in that article because I am hoping that user ArameanSyriac will get to it eventually, since he is the expert on the Syriacs issue. Again, lets work together, communicate, and will we achieve great things here. Chaldean (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean I understand you but ArameanSyriac is not going to do that! Im sure he is an antiAssyrian! and he is not an expert on the Syriac issue that's for sure! if he want to describe the Western Assyrians-Syriacs as Arameans the in our article Assyrian people we will not describe the syriac-aramaic people so make it clear for him he is not neutral! WestAssyrian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is one thing you need to know. Term syriac refers to both groups. Please dont remove Syriac people and replace it with Assyrian people. The link Syriac people refers to an article where you either can click on Aramean-Syriac people or Assyrian people. Term Assyrian is very controvesial and not all wants to be identified with the assyrians, and thats the same with aramean. So please Stop adding Assyrians in all articles. THe best thing is to write Syriac. And dont chagne anything in Syriac music or syriac culture. There is already an article named Assyrian music, and there can you write what ever you want. If you want to work with me then stop your vandelizm. I have contributed alot to assyrian related articles, but as much as i have seen now, the only thing ive noticed with you is that you try to change Syriac to Assyrian. Are you gonna continue your struggle or are you going to cooperate with me? And one thing you need to know is that before you edit anything realated to assyrians-arameans-syriacs, then come and discuss it with me, so we can figure out the best solution. Is that fine with you? AramaeanSyriac (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not get involved right not since I am way too busy, but ArameanSyriac, you are mistaken when you say Syriac refers to all of the group. Syriac in terms of today's modern use is only a reference to the people of the Syriac Ortho/Catholic Churches. We see this in our print media today; you see Ishtar TV and the Suryoyo channel always saying "Ashuri/Cheldani/Syriani" - the Syriani is only a reference to Syriac Ortho/Catholics. It might, sometimes, but to a very lesser extent, may refer to the entire group, but realistically, in the English language, Assyrian is more commonly used in the English language then Syriac to refer to the entire group, but we will not get into this arguement. I just wanted to point out that what you said about Syriacs being a reference to all was simply not true. Chaldean (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

~When i say syriac i mean the article Syriac people. From that article you can either move on to Aramean peope or Assyrian people. Chaldean it will be very annoying to read in every article Assyrian/Syriac. What is the best solution do you think? AramaeanSyriac (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I know how annoying it can be seeing Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean in every page, but honestly, what other neutral solution do we have? Syriac is not a nuetral term - its a reference mostly/if not all the times to Syriacs. Maybe we should move the Syriac people page to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac and then have the three listed their. Then maybe pro-Assyrians like user:WestAssyrian won't have a problem. Chaldean (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is someone that is changing the fact then its you AramaeanSyriac! if you want to be neutral about the Assyrian/Syriac pages then first of all change your article to Western Syriacs and describe them as Assyrian-Syriacs and Aramean-Syriacs if you dont do that then we are not going to describe us as Syriacs! and Syriacs isnt describing the whole group its only describing the Assyrian-Aramean people in the Syriac Church!!!! do you understand that?? WestAssyrian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, before you get a heartattack or something. Thats the annoying thing with you, i dont understand what you want or what you want to accomplish. Please dont be a child, discuss like normal persons. If this makes you happy, go ahead and add (Also called syrics and chaldeans) in the Assyrian people article. If you want to work togheter then tell me. Me and Chaldean work excellent togheter and it would be good if me and you also could do that. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mesopotamian?

This is more a general question, than looking to state that "X group are X name" because I am not entirely familiar with all the details. But do all Assyrians/Chaldeans/Aramaeans identify with the title "Mesopotamia" and "Mesopotamians"? Surely this would seem more logical than the feudalist bickering amongst certain elements of these Christians, who do not have a homeland currently and are unlikley to ever gain one if there are feudalistic divisions even amongst themselves. Why is it that Assyrians/Chaldeans/Aramaeans don't just call themselves, overall Mesopotamian? Thanks for any insight. - Gennarous (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But do all Assyrians/Chaldeans/Aramaeans identify with the title "Mesopotamia" and "Mesopotamians"? - Of course they do, but Iraqi Arabs also identify with Mesopotamia. You will hear of Iraqi nationalism, it is basically anti-Arabic pro-Mesopotamian. Iraqi nationalism emphisizes on how the Iraqi Arabs are different from other Arabs, in that they have Mesopotamian blood. You asked the question of why don't all Assyrians identify more with Mesoptamian, rather then the various different ancient empires - Babylon and Assyria made up Mesopotamia; but Babylon hailed from Southern Iraq (Baghdad and below), where as Assyria hailed from northern Iraq - which is where today's Assyrians reside (homeland.) That is why they identify mostly with Assyrian, rather then Mesopotamian/Babylon. Chaldean (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Entry in WikiProject directory

I created an entry for you at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society#Ethnic_conflict_resolution_projects. Since there hasn't been any activity recently I entered you as Active=no; please change as appropriate. I hope that if you are indeed inactive then it's a sign that conflicts have calmed down. — Sebastian 07:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The debate is going on at talk:Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. The TriZ (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Do people feel it is easier to discuss on an article talk page, or are they disappointed of the WikiProject? — Sebastian 21:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of the guys "discussing" over there, doesn't even know about this cooperation board, they probably don't even bother looking because cooperation is nothing they care about. The TriZ (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We had good experience with WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation; it served as a model for other related projects. If there is a will to do something similar in your area, please let me know (either online or by e-mail). — Sebastian 06:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer, it remains a question though if this cooperation board is to be awoken. The TriZ (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian/Syriac Issue

hello, to get you in the context of things, there was an issue between assyrianists and arameanists about the 'assyrian people page' arameanists claim that Syriacs are not assyrians rather arameans, while assyrians claim syriacs are infact assyrians. Long story short, some admins got involved and we compromised that the pages should be one, and that instead of just "Assyrian" they be "Assyrian/Syriac" or "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac", as seen here: [[2]], and [[3]]. This was the norm for a while and everyone was happy. User:The TriZ took liberty of changing all previous "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Syriac" and everyone was fine with that too. Now the issue is that when I tried to do the exact same thing he did but changing "Syriac" to "Assyrian/Syriac" he undoes my posts ... I ask for explanation, and he asks for sources (mind you he provided no sources for Syriac), then I provide him with sources, and he does want to continue to discuss the issue. He impliments his POV in every page without any sources, and when we try to put the accepted neutral stance of "Assyrian/Syriac" title (Which he agreed upon) he is against it. This is POV at its fullest. The pages I am talking about are: [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], and he recently changed "Assyrian" to "Syriac" just recently on this page [[8]]. I have asked him as to why he keeps doing this on this talkpage but as you will see he does want to discuss. P.S. his moves threaten the neutral "Assyrian/Syriac" titles implemented by admins, If he continues like this then what is the point of keeping his changes from "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Syriac"? Malik Danno (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nameconflict issue

Hi all,

I’m an outsider of the Assyrian-Aramean nation, but although I am someone who is interested in their history, culture etc. I enjoy reading about it, but I consider a lot of pages on the English Wikipedia as ‘Assyrian nationalism’ and POV. Lots of articles going about Arameans or people who identify as Arameans are being changed to Assyrian.

This case got my attention so I wanted to do a research on it. While doing my research I found groups on Reddit and Facebook including 2000+ Assyrian nationalist calling up every Assyrian to edit the pages of Arameans into Assyrians and keep pushing the Assyrian cause.

I’m really concerned about the situation of Assyrians attacking the Aramean identity and deleting their history and culture. Entire pages about cities, people and churches are being changed in the Assyrian name.

This case that can be labeled as a real ‘problem’ is unfair to the Arameans who are struggling for their survival.

Therefore I want to see a solution for the ongoing Assyrian nationalism and POV on Wikipedia pages.

MixedButHumann (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)