Talk:Assyrian people/Archive 15

The Aramization of Assyria
I added this section to deal with the population dominance of the Arameans that lead to Aramaic being imposed as the language of the empire. This was not covered on the page. The impact of the Aramization of Assyrian was mainly linguistic. The CAUSE was demographic. Some of the sources make mention of the population of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the region of Assyria Proper being dominated by the Arameans, some refer to the cultural influence or fusion. While other sources refer to the Aramean dominance of the population after the fall of the Assyrian Empire.

Sources: R.Zadok, "The Ethno-Linguistic Character of the Jezireh and Adjacent Regions in the 9th-7th centuries (Assyria Proper vs Periphery),"(1995) page 281. "[The Assyrians] were capable of constant Assyrianization of the foreigners only in their core country, namely Assyria proper and certain adjacent regions...whereas in the periphery...the West-Semitic (practically Aramean) majority prevailed and even increased in the last generation of the Assyrian empire...There is no doubt that after the fall of teh Assyrian empire Assyria proper has been completely Aramaicized within a few decades"

E. von Dassow "Text and Artifact, A comprehensive History of the Arameans" (1999) page 250 "Assyrianization so suffused Aramean societies, while more and more Arameans were absorbed into Assyrian society, that the result was a cultural fusion: that which was Assyrian was made Aramean as Assyria herself was Aramaized"

K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (Deerfield, IL), “War and Peace” in the Origins of the Arameans Page 865 From roughly the end of the reign of Ashur-bel-kala to Aššur-dan II the Assyrian monarchy was characterized by political and military weakness. Little direct information is available, but it is easy to deduce that the Arameans were now the superior power and occupied much of what had once been regarded as Assyrian territory. Various Aramean penetrations led to the abandonment of Assyrian farmland with parts of the population taking refuge in other regions, e.g. Šubria or abruri. Thus during the Iron I, a considerable change took place in the Jezireh so that by the 9th century much of the population was now Aramean in areas formerly under the control of Assyria

page 866 To sum up, Assyria began to lose its hegemony over the Jezireh sometime after the reign of Ashur-narari III (1193-1188 BC). The actual Aramean Landnahme took place rapidly (van Driel 2005, 8). Some of the Aramean groups that penetrated the Jezireh created political entities (e.g. Bit Baiani and Bit Zamani – and possibly Bet Sullel/Azallu and Bali). Others appear as confederations of various sedentary political groups (e.g. the Laqeans – including Bit alupe, and the Temanites). Still others are confederations of nonsedentary tribal affiliations (e.g. the atallu – composed of the Sarugu, Lu uaya, and Amatu clans).

HAYIM TADMOR, THE ARAMAIZATION OF ASSYRIA: ASPECTS OF WESTERN IMPACT page 9 An attempt has been made in this paper to outline the evidence for the impact of the West on the Assyrian Empire, predominantly that of the Arameans and the Aramaic language, initiated by annexing the lands west of the Khabur and the Euphrates and by mass deportations. In time the Arameans gradually transformed the cultural face of the Empire and were to outlive Assyria by serving as the link with the succeeding Chaldean and Achaemenid Empires. The Assyrians, vastly outnumbered by their captives, forced them to participate in the building and maintaining of their state and inevitably, if therefore, absorbed much linguistically and culturally from the West. That this was not a one-way process, but rather a highly complex symbiotic relationship between the Assyrians and the Arameans, can no longer be doubted

H.W.F. Saggs, The Might the was Assyria "It was, in fact, the cities of Assyria [the direct region of ashur not the broader empire] which were the destinations of a majority of unknown deportations. Assyrian cities thus became cosmopolitan and polyglot, with the possibility that within them people of actual ancient Assyrian descent were a minority"

David Danzig, Harvey Weiss (2013) The Socio-economic Structure of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: Resource Extraction and Redistribution – The Imperial Engine Archaeologies of Empire page 6 "As part of the imperializing project, there was a significant emphasis on belongingness to the empire. This operated on two planes, the ideal and real. Ideally, people living in the Heartland adopted at least an ostensive ethnicity of Assyrian, naturally held by all native Assyrians. Provincialized territories had their citizens become imperial Assyrians, more of a political designation, than necessarily an ethnic one. Vassal states maintained their “national” ethnic identities, but on some superficial level were also included into the notion of all people of the empire being Assyrians." "However, in practicality, an increasing proportion of people living in the Heartland were of various ethnic identities due to the continuous import of foreigners in the mass transplantations of population. This led to a mixing of ethnicities, cultures, and languages. For instance, this period saw the spread of Aramaic through much of Assyria and Mesopotamia, which is largely indicative of this ethnic melting pot. The newly inter-cultural nature of society was also operant on the elite level, in which western, Syrian and Levantine, styles were increasingly valued. As they were incorporated into the styles of the many luxurious appurtenances of the wealthy Assyrians, they slowly helped form a new hybrid Assyrian identity. Outside of the Heartland, there were varying degrees of ethnic integration. Provinces brought in some Assyrians for administration and military protection, thereby bringing locals into contact with Assyrians and vice versa. Religiously, the destruction of many cultic locations and the imposition of Assyrian rites, certainly had some effects, although the response of locals could vary. Naturally, the import of outside population could mitigate this effect and aid in the low level Assyrianization of the provinces. On the other hand, vassal peoples certainly kept their identities. Nevertheless, the somewhat regular contact that had been initiated with them, either politically, militarily, or via trade, impacted the vassal states by making their inhabitants somewhat more worldly and global.”

G.Roux, Ancient Iraq page 423 "[the Assyrians] could not withstand the profound ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural changes that were introduced by successive waves of invaders in northern Mesopotamia - Persians, Greeks, Arameans,pre-Islamic Arabs - who could be neither kept at bay or assimilated"

G.Roux, Ancient Iraq. page 308 "The deportees were not slaves: distributed through the empire as needs arose, they the had no special status and were simply 'counted among the people of Assyria', which means that they had the same duties and rights as original Assyrians. This policy of deportation - mainly from Aramaic-speaking areas - was pursued by Tiglathpileser's successors, and the number of persons forcibly removed from their home during three centuries had been estimated at four and a half million. It has largely contributed to the 'Aramaization' of Assyria, a slow but almost continuous process which, together with the internationalization of the army, probably played a role in the collapse of the empire"

"the revived settlements had very little in common with their Assyrian or Babylonian precursors"...."a nation [Assyria] that forgets it's language forgets its past and soon loses its identity"

Fiey, "ASSYRIANS? OR ARAMEANS?" page 4 "In the mean time, the racial entities were well-blurred. The Syrians, that is the Christians of the north and the south of Iraq, and notably the Athorians of the region of Nineveh, were not only of the Aramaean stock, but offered a mixture of all races. Medes, Persians, Parthians, Jews, Kurds, and not excluding the descendants of the ancient Assyrians, all melted inside the great Syrian Church. From 424 A.D., this church is split in the western and eastern churches, and the Christological heresies, like the wars between the Persians and Romans, quickly upset the borders between the two rites and caused a further soldering of the races."...."The only point that can be put forward with certainty is that, for historians of religions and the liturgists, the Aramaeans of the south and the inhabitants of Athor in the north are Syrians, of the east or of the west. From the point of view of faith, they are Nestorians or Monophysites."

Sr 76 (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Their is absolutely no evidence of this you are only mixing up everything together with your so called "sources" that proves nothing and you are taking certain thing out of context, assyrians became aramaic speakers like everyone else in Mesopotamia, the reason why you are wrong and without even showing you sources is because their are several kingdoms after the Assyrian empire with heavy assyrian influence like Urhoy, Adiabane, Hatra etc and remember after 700 BC the aramean identity vanished for good they became all assyrianized when the Assyrian empire qonquered the whole Levant and made aramaic their language, if you want to read more about this part.. Source: Sebastian Brock "The Hidden Pearl" volume 1 page 8

By the way I can also show you over 20 sources which contradict everything you wrote now, you are only in Wikipedia for one reason to show your anti-Assyrian propaganda nothing else --Suryoye85 (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

SR 76 you show some sources what about adding the sources that show heavy Assyrian influence after the fall of the empire? we don't see any aramean influence only Assyrian and by the way why are you using Saggs as a source? didn't you remove him when we talked about the Assyrian identity? funny right, now its oke to use him as a source fitting your propaganda --SuryoyeGBG (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Suryoye85 excellent, then I'll wait for you to stop arguing and display your references about the population of the Assyrians.

@SuryoyeGBG the section was added for the purpose of demonstrating an Aramean POPULATION dominance over the Assyrians in the broader empire and in Assyria proper. Some of the source sited already refer to the cultural fusion (that includes an Assyrian influence on the Arameans). So far as Saggs is concerned I did not remove him as a valid source, I removed the single cherry picked quote that was used to demonstrate a hypothesis that completely took what Saggs wrote out of context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Saggs_taken_out_of_context — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr 76 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Suryoye85 "Sebastian Brock is talking about the disappearance of a SPECIFIC ethnic Aramean race, which is true, but he didn't say that the mixed race descendants from the Arameans with other nations didn't call or consider themselves as Arameans. How many nations on this earth are actually of pure race? The same thing happened, when the Arab Muslims invaded the Levant, Mesopotamia and North Africa and intermingled with the local nations, e.g. Berbers, Jews, Arameans, Black people, Copts etc.. After several hundreds of years the Arabs were no longer able to distinguish between pure Arabs and mixed race Arabs. However, their descendants are linguistic and cultural Arabs or do modern Egyptians, Syrians, Tunisians,... don't consider themselves as ethnic Arabs? Are the modern Turks a specific ethnic race? An ethnicity is not only based on genes, if this is that what you mean!... ."

BTW you should also mention what Sebastian Brock has else written in the hidden pearl. Brock also wrote that the words Aramean and Syrian are interchangeable and the word Aramean would apply to pagans while Syriac/Syrian means Christian, but he didn't mention Assyrian! And this is exactly what even my parents and grandparents always told me about the meaning of Suryoyo. The Christian and Muslim Arameans near Damascus are another great example, because all three villages Ma'loula, Jubb'adin and Bakhah were original Christian (Melkite) and they call their Aramaic dialect "Siryon" or "Loghtha Siryanoytha" as well. This clearly shows the Greek-Christian influence on the Arameans in the Levant and Mesopotamia, because in Ma'loula are remains of early Christianity and Greek writings. See 3:35 min and 6:30 min, where they say "Siryon" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFaZ6YiBPWc or this page http://www.ethnologue.com/search/search_by_page/western%20aramaic.

SuryoyeGBG has removed the whole content from the Aramean identity section, where the patriarchs of the Syriac-Orhodox Church said in their OWN words that the Syrians/Suryoye are descendants of the Arameans/Oromoye or they were previously called Arameans and these citations goes hundreds of years back before the nationalism among the Western and Eastern Syrian Christians actually started. However, I couldn't find any citations from Nestorian Christians (in their OWN words of course!) BEFORE the 19th century, where they endorse an Assyrian ethnic identity. So, how do you guys can say then that there is no Aramean continuity or the Aramean ethnic identiy disappeared, but an Assyrian continuity still exists?

--Suryoyo124 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

they are drawing their conclusions from a falsified reference. The words have been changed in a couple of areas to misrepresent what Brock was intending. I found a couple of these misquotations floating around the internet recently.Sr 76 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Sr 76, the Aramization of Assyria, which was mainly linguistical, is described here on Wikipedia. I recommend you to read Parpola's publication regarding this and the Assyrian identity in ancient times, I think the link somewhere above. I'm not sure if that is why started this thread, if not, please explain. As for the Brock discussion; as I earlier mentioned it's not really NPOV, Brock has been working together with the Syriac Orthodox Church on a several project and been paid for those (e.g. The Hidden Pearl). Shmayo (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @Shmayo And what are you trying to express by saying "...and been paid for those..."? Do you think your Assyrian Superstars such as Simo Parpola are not getting paid by Assyrian organizations and they work just for Fun or they pay the trips to Syria or Iraq out of their own pocket? Are you kidding? Simo Parpola claims in one of his interviews that the Assyrian identity has been better preserved by the Nestorians. Where are the chronicles, writings, literature etc. of the Eastern Suraye BEFORE the 19th century and in their OWN words, which underlines his claim and say Syrian=Assyrian? I am waiting. Ironically, the Church of the East was renamed into Assyrian Church of the East in the 19th century. In reality the opposite is the case, whereas the Western Suryoye have better preserved the Aramean identity than the Eastern Suraye after Christianization and this can be seen in the rich history of the Syriac-Orthodox Church.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the impact of the Aramization of Assyrian was mainly linguistic. The CAUSE was demographic, I added this section to deal with the population dominance of the Arameans that lead to Aramaic being imposed as the language of the empire. This was not covered on the page. I would suggest if you really want to understand the history of your people you need to get over this fixation with Parpola, he derived his Assyrian theories to support his Christalogical Theories. They are wrong, and he has come under much criticism by his fellow scholars for this. He is the only one that thinks this way. Most importantly do not in any way question the integrity of Dr Sebastian Brock, he has been the most respected academic in the field of Syriac studies for decades. Getting paid to do work is normal, the difference between Parpola and Brock is: Brock's work doesn't fall under criticism from his fellow scholars for his work, because he does not stray from the truth. I challenge you to find any criticisms of Brock's work, considering the number of books and papers he has published over the decades it should be easy for you if he is not NPOV, as you say.Sr 76 (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There were many reasons to use Aramaic instead of Akkadian, a language with more than 400 symbol. As for Parpola, let's not get into that discussion again, the same person that criticized him for a specific theory wrote, in the very same publication, that he was one of the best Assyriologist. Your quotes were listed for no other reason than to remove some of Parpolas theories, not having anything to do with the actual criticism. Of course many more are paid for works, but you know very well Brock is in close relation with the Syriac Orthodox Church of today, I remember that there were a interesting discussion regarding this topic here back in 2008. The difference between Parpola and Brock is that Brock's knowledge is much limited to Christianity. Shmayo (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * THIS IS AMAZING. It was you and your fellow Assyrians that were quoting Brock, saying he wrote that the term Aramean really meant Aramean speaker. As soon as I suggested that you were misquoting Brock (i didn't even bother to present the quote), you turn on Brock and start questioning his credentials......?????....seriouslySr 76 (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2015
Would like to add the term "Ashurites" which is a more accurate term for Assyrians, as it states that they are both the inhabitants of Ashur and the sons of the Biblical Ashur.

Ordo de Essentia (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 04:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean people redirect
If you are going to redirect the Chaldean people page to this page you must include Chaldean information here as well. If not then you must revert this redirection. Figure it out --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

this entire page is idiotic, the redirection was put in place, the excuse at the time being "Content Fork". It's quite clear the content fork didn't really exist. Because all they did was remove the Syriac-Aramean and Chaldean pages without modifying the content of the existing page to accommodate the others. Typical Assyrian properganda. This was done by means contrary to the conventions of Wikipedia, see the links below: http://www.assyrianvoice.net/forum/index.php?topic=16628.95;wap2 http://www.assyrianvoice.net/forum/index.php?topic=16628.100;wap2

This has been done with the clear intention of violating the Canvassing rules, clearly vote-stacking and Stealth Canvassing. This is why the content of the Assyrian People page is the way that it is. Sr 76 (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am acutely aware of the situation you are mentioning, as I have attended some Assyrian functions where they have boasted their accomplishments on deleting Chaldean history as well as other Near East Christian identities. It is sad that they have gotten as far as they have without anyone offering any kind of sufficient resistance. --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a naming issue more than anything else. As Sebastian Brock, arguably the most authoritative scholar of Syriac Christianity, explains the naming conflict briefly here, while the term "Assyrian" is the most popular to describe the ethnic identity of Syriac Christians, it remains problematic and not universally accepted. Forking content to Chaldean and Syriac people will create more problems, I'm in the opinion of using a complex term, it is officially used in Iraq, US and Sweden, so why not also in Wikipedia.--  K a t h o v o  talk 19:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In the Iraqi Constitution, Chaldeans and Assyrians are named separately. They simply are not the same people. I have many many sources I can cite if you're interested. --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a complex issue as I said, you are probably referring to article 125 which states:
 * Literally: "Constitution guarantees rights ... of Turkmen, Chaldeans and Assyrians, and other groups..." Notice the commas, also nowhere it suggests Chaldeans and Syriacs are separate, if you want to delve into why they were mentioned this way and why Syriacs were omitted I suggest you read this interview with Yonadam Kanna. The status qua on the ground is that Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs compete on the same reserved political positions in central and KRG parliaments as well as municipal councils' elections. Usually it's Assyrian political parties that win most seats by popular votes, despite the fact that what you would describe as "non-Assyrians" form the majority of voters.--  K a t h o v o  talk 07:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Background info Naming conventions (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac) -- Moxy (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your editing on the English version of Wikipedia, please post using English, thank you.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 17:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hes quoting The Iraqi Constitution - looks like Article 121 to me - I think its something to do with commas...however in the translation to English they seem to put comma.   -- Moxy (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hes quoting The Iraqi Constitution - looks like Article 121 to me - I think its something to do with commas...however in the translation to English they seem to put comma.   -- Moxy (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kathovo I'm not sure what you mean by content fork, there is very little evidence of this on the page. With the exception of the first line. The page is almost exclusively Assyrian content, or content setup to "prove" Assyrian continuity.Sr 76 (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I realise just as you do that this article is flawed, you made several suggestions to improve its contents by removing POV references and making it more open to unrepresented views. I don't see what content you can fit in "Chaldean people" but not in "Assyrian people".--  K a t h o v o  talk 20:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Kathovo, I appreciate what you are saying. It's true, the time period between the Chaldeans and Assyrians receiving these appellations is not great, what ever facts exists about the Chaldeans we have during those few centuries, is valid enough for them to presented under the name Chaldean and hence treating today's Chaldeans with dignity. There is nothing dignified with the way Wikipeadia is setup at the moment. Sr 76 (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Syrius777 (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)I personally don't like this redirect. Chaldean's have a long history and there is a lot to be written about. The redirect to Assyrian looks like its more a political move in which i am not happy about. I also dont believe that Assyrians and Chaldean's are the same People. For instance look at the Babylonian and the Assyrian historical war or the old Aramaic of the letters in Babylon and even in Assyria, such proving also that today Assyrian's are rather Aramaic.

good storyIphoneonderdeel (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Syrian/Syriac synonyms with Aramean
Before anyone tries to "prove" how wrong I am on this read the whole section, especially the 7 Key notes at the bottom.

DEFINITION "etymology": a chronological account of the birth and development of a particular word or element of a word, often delineating its spread from one language to another and its evolving changes in form and meaning. I added the above dictionary definition of the word etemology, because people like to throw this word around and dont really consider its impact. So when historians talk about the etymology of the word Syriac, they are referring to how the word originated only, this covers the words evolution from one meaning to another. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/etymology?s=t

ORIGINS OF THE WORD SYRIAN (pre-reading before we deal with the Synonym issue)

I have provided some sources from academics subscribing to the view that the word Syrian was derived from Assyrian, this etymological relationship between the two words was that they referred to the same people same AT FIRST, hence the derivation. This includes Robert Rollinger that has been the main protagonist in arguing the for the theory for the past few decades, where he also claims that he has settled the question of where the name Syrian/Syriac come from "once and for all". The word Syrian and Assyrian were synonyms and stipulate that this was reflected at only a given period during the inception of the word Syrian from Assyrian.

Guy Bunnens - Essays on Syria in the iron age: Syria in the iron age - problems of definition page 4 "The term 'Syria', inseprable from the adjective 'Syrian', is therefore synonymous, at least originally, with 'Assyria'." .... page 6 Bunnens then question the logic of using a purely Symantec definition of 'Syria': "the Aramean invasion of the area and the foundation of the foundation of powerful and flourishing states in the Iron Age. Alt's great merit is to underline continuities in Syria's history and to have to show that apparent obstacles did not hamper the country's development as an autonomous entity. His enquiry impaired by the fact that he did not demonstrate the existence of any kind of internal logic within whatever notion is covered by the term 'Syria', that would explain the continuities he observed."

ROBERT ROLLINGER, Journal of Near Eastern Studies: THE TERMS “ASSYRIA” AND “SYRIA” AGAIN page 283 "Since antiquity there has been a debate about whether there is a linguistic connection between the words 'Assyria' and 'Syria.' In 1617 John Selden suggested that the name 'Syria' is simply a corruption of 'Assyria'. Konrad Nöldeke restated this assumption in 1881 in a meticulous reexamination of the question. The results of Nöldeke’s study were generally received as authoritative. The debate, however, was kept alive in the following century. Eduard Schwartz examined some of the Classical authors’ statements in greater detail. and agreed with Nöldeke’s conclusions. Payton Helm, in his 1980 survey of the current state of the debate, reafirmed the conclusions of Nöldeke and Schwartz."

page 284 "There were also slight differences concerning the original meaning of the terms “Assyria” and “Syria” in the Greek sources."

page 287 "It also seems that these Greeks encountered “Sura/i” and “Asura/i” (by now the fully evolved equivalents for one and the same region) and rendered them in Greek as “Syria” and “Assyria.” These terms were used in subsequent centuries as interchangeable toponyms, although both terms also began to carry special connotations as was demonstrated by Nöldeke, Schwartz, and others. Since antiquity, scholars have both doubted and emphasized this relationship. It is the contention of this paper that the Çineköy inscription settles the problem once and for all."

NOTE: Not only does Rollinger claim to have proven that the name 'Syrian' came from 'Assyrian' once and for all, he also claims they were used interchangeably with one another for a short period. Just like the statements by Brunnes. He then goes on to acknowledge and confirm Nöldeke and Schwartz: "From the time the Greeks came to have a more intimate acquaintance with Asia, they designated by the name "Syrians" the people who called themselves "Arameans".

The main academic (Rollinger) arguing for the theory that the word Syrian was derived from Assyrian, suggests that the names were synonyms in ORIGIN (first couple of centuries) and then CONCURS WITH the idea (Nöldeke and Schwartz) that the name Syrian took on a different meaning, and BECAME A SYNONYM OF ARAMEAN. Keep in mind these are referring to a time prior to the Christian period and only from the European perspective, the Arameans themselves were still called themselves Arameans at that time.

In other words just because the word Syrian/Syriac came from the word Assyrian, does not suggest the two words meant the same thing through out history

ACADEMICS CONFIRMING THE SYNONYMITY OF SYRIAN AND ARAMEAN

Theodor Noldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar Page iv "From the time the Greeks came to have a more intimate acquaintance with Asia, they designated by the name 'Syrians' the people who called themselves 'Arameans'."

Theodor Nöldeke, Assyrios Syrios Syros, in Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie, Hermes 5, Berlin 1871 page 460 "The main body of the population of all these wide landscapes from the Mediterranean Sea to beyond the Tigris belonged to a certain nationality, that of the Arameans." page 461 "It is well understandable that people have started to transfer the name of the country to the most important nationality and so the name 'syrian' was apprehended ethnological and was equated with 'aramaic'." page 468 "Since the times of Alexander [the Great], if not already somewhat earlier, people have started to transfer the name of the Syrians exclusively over the prevailing in Syria nationality, and in this way this originally political-geographical term became an ethnological one that was identified with the local Arameans."

Theodor Noldeke, Die Namen der aramäischen Nation und Sprache,” in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 25 (1871) page 131 "Regarding the name of this nation and its language is the original 'Aramean’ in essence also the only one, that for the employment of the present-day scholarship as yet strongly fits.”

Karl Eduard Sachau, Verzeichnis der Syrischen Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin von Eduard Sachau 1. Abteilung, Berlin 1899 Page i "The nation of the Arameans: This national name later, mainly in consequence of Jewish-Christian literature influences, gave way to the Greek designation Syrians."

Prof. Dietrich Hermann Hegewisch, Die Aramäer oder Syrer; ein kleiner Beitrag zur allgemeinen Weltgeschichte, Berlinische Monatschrift, 2, 1794 page 193 "Do not the Syrians, as they are usually called, or the Arameans, as they in fact are termed, deserve more attention in world history than they are usually given?" page 197 "The names Syria, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, etc. stem from the Greeks, who were not familiar with the true geography of these lands when the names first started to be used. Later, partly because of continuing ignorance and partly because of convenience despite having accurate knowledge, they persisted in using them since it would have required something of an effort to give up the old, familiar names and divisions of the countries and switch to the new ones, even if they were more accurate. The old, true, and single name of these lands is Aram; it is mentioned numerous times in the Bible of the Old Testament, and Greek scholars were also familiar with it and probably described the population of these areas as Arameans, though seldom, as they usually continued to use the term Syrian, which had been familiar to the Greeks." page 307 "The Syrians or Arameans were not merely a numerous and large people, they were also a much cultivated people."

Theodor Mommsen, The History of Rome, written between 1854 and 1856, Leipzig, by Theodor Mommsen, Book First Chapter One "the Arameans defended their nationality with the weapons of intellect as well as with their blood against all the allurements of Greek civilization and all the coercive measures of eastern and western despots, and that with an obstinacy which no Indo- Germanic people has ever equalled, and which to us who are Occidentals seems to be sometimes more, sometimes less, than human."

S.P.Brock and J.F.Coakley, Syriac Heritage Encylopedic Dictionary page 31 "In many Syriac writers Aramoyo[Aramean] and Suryoyo [Syriac] are synonyms; normally this refers to the language, but on occasion they are used as alternate ethnic terms"

Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard/Article/Aram-Nahrin--the-Aramaeans--the-Bible--Christianity--and-the-West/27211 "The Semitic Arameans ('not to be confused with "Armenians") underwent a change of name after they had embraced Christianity and were then called "Syrians", in order to be distinguished from the Arameans who were not converted. However, this should not be confused with the present-day Syrian Arabs."

R.Zadok, "The Ethno-Linguistic Character of the Jezireh and Adjacent Regions in the 9th-7th centuries (Assyria Proper vs Periphery),"(1995) page 280 "These Arameans were presumably the forerunners of the sizable Syriac-speaking population of this region during the Byzantine and later periods"

John Joseph, Assyria and Syria: Synonyms? page 37 "FIRST: WESTERN USAGE OF 'SYRIA' AND 'ASSYRIA': There was a time when the West [the Greeks], not fully familiar with the Near East, did not differentiate between Syria and Assyria, especially when the Assyrians were still in power. But as early as the fifth century B.C., about two centuries after the fall of Nineveh, Herodotus very clearly differentiated between the two terms and regions. Randolph Helm’s researches show that Herodotus “conscientiously” and “consistently” distinguished the names Syria and Assyria and used them independently of each other." page 38 "page he even speaks of “the long-accepted statement of Herodotus (7.63) that the Greeks called Assyrians by the name Syrian without initial a-.” On the following page he notes that Herodotus “may represent a turning point” in the separation of the two terms." ..... "When the Greeks became better acquainted with the Near East, especially after Alexander the Great overthrew the Achaemenian empire in the 4th century B.C., and then the Greeks and Romans ruled the region for centuries, they restricted the name Syria to the lands west of the Euphrates. During the 3rd century B.C., when the Hebrew bible was translated into the Greek Septuagint for the use of the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria, the terms Aramean and Aramaic of the Hebrew Bible were translated into 'Syrian' and 'the Syrian tongue' respectively."

SYRIAC ARAMAIC EXAMPLES

S.P.Brock and J.F.Coakley, Syriac Heritage Encylopedic Dictionary page 31 "Bardaisan is described as Suryoyo [Syrian] and Aramoyo [Aramean]" "Ya'qub of Edessa, in his 'Encheiridion' and elsewhere, speaks of 'we are Suryoye [Syriacs], or Aramoye [Arameans]'." "This equation [Syriac = Aramean] is further elaborated in Appendix II to Michael Rabo's [Michael the Syrians] Chronicle." (see the Dorothea Weltecke below for the actual Michael the Syrian's quote)

Crone Cook, Hagarism page 196 "they [Nestorians or Eastern Syriacs] quite frequently speak of themselves and their language as Aramean"

Dorothea Weltecke,Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East Page: 119 "Things become less clear when we try to decide his position concerning secular and ethnic identity. It is obvious that for Michael the ancient Near East had a very special importance. The ancient Near East recurred in the Chronicle. In the heading of his Appendix II Michael states: 'With the help of God we write down the memory of the kingdoms which belong in the past to our Aramean people, that is, sons of Aram, who are called Suryoye [Syriacs], this people from Syria'....This statement seems to be straightforward enough. But compared to other phrases, some contradictions arise. Following the work by Flavius Josephus (37-after 100 CE) through intermediaries, Michael explains the change of the name of ancient Near Eastern people end empires through the changes by the Greeks 'The Arameans were called Syrians by the Greeks and Oturoye were called Assyrians.' This statement is in accordance with the sentence just quoted."

KEY NOTES FROM THE ABOVE:

The significance of Syrian/Syriac synonymity to the word Aramean as opposed to the initial derivation of the word Syrian from Assyrian, is based on a number of fronts -

1) There will be people that will argue that the synonymity between the word Syrian and Aramean only applied to the Roman provence of Syria, as is currently stated on the 'Assyrian People' Wikipedia page, and that this does not implicate Mesopotamia. However this is just wishful thinking by the modern-Assyrians and is incorrect because as we have seen, from the above sources there has been examples directly from Mesopotamiaand as Noldeke has stated that it may have been used as geographical synonym it also became an ethnic synonym, completely eliminating that argument. We also see from the Septuagint (sources above) that the Hellenic Jews replaced location names like Aram-Nahrin (northern Mesopotamia) with Syria-Nahrin. Demonstrating that word Aramean was substituted for the word Syrian everywhere not just the Roman provence of Syria but also in Mesopotamia.

2) The initial Assyrian synonymitity was a Greek usage and at a time the Greeks were not familiar with the near-east.

3) This initial usage CHANGED shortly after the Greeks became familiar with the region. This usage ceased to exist.

4) The word Assyrian continued to be used in Greek and even when the word Syrian replaced the word Aramean. The word Assyrian stayed the same. For example: the word Assyrian was NOT replaced by the word Syrian in the Septigint and other Greek texts, only the word Aramean was.

5) The two words Syrian and Assyrian continued to coexist in the European languages for over 2500 years, despite sounding and being spelled almost identical to one another. The reason why both names coexisted is because they had two different meanings, if the two names referred to the same people one name would have absorbed the other, but they didn't.

6) The Arameans took on the name Syrian for themselves, during the Christian period, at a time when the name Syrian was used exclusively to refer to the Arameans. This is because of the Greek influences by closer political, cultural and religious relationships through the Christian churches. The Arameans knew the Greeks called them Syrians, and took on the word Suryoyo, which is the Aramaic form of the Greek word Syrian.

7) The Syrians/Syriacs themselves, during the Christian period, continually refer to their Aramean heritage and the synonymity between the words Syrian and Aramean.


 * Point 6 - is very important

FIRST PARTY SOURCES OF SYNONYMITY BETWEEN THE WORDS SYRIAN AND ARAMEAN

I have included these to supplement the academic views above, for the purposes of this discussion (and I guess not for use on the page). I don't have time to find an academic reference to each of these.

SYRIAC ARAMAIC EXAMPLES Paul Bedjan - Ecclesiastic History "Bar Daisan the Syrian".... "Bar Daisan the Aramean" Notice Bar Daisan is both Syrian and Aramean, NOT Assyrian. FYI Bar Daisan still sits on the Assyrian People page.

St Jacob of Sruj (521AD), refering to St Ephram the Syriac: "became a crown of Glory for all the Aramean nation" Today St Ephram is called "the crown of the Syriacs", because of the synonymity between the words Syrian and Aramean

Dionysius Jacob Bar Salibi 12th AD "As to us Syriacs we descend racially from Shem, and our father is Kemuel son of Aram, and from this name of Aram we are also called sometimes in the Books by the name of "Arameans." We are called "Syriacs" after the name of "Syrus," who built Antioch with its banlieue; and the country was called after him, "Syria". "The name Syriac [Suryoyo] is derived from Syrus who ruled in Antioch, and Syria was named after him. We are the sons of Aram we were called Arameans"

St Ephrem the Syrian 306AD - 373AD "Aram-Nahrin our country" "From Hebrews and Arameans, and also from the Watchers: to You be praise and through You to Your Father, be also glory!" "The Arameans praised him with their branches" "But the Philosopher of the Arameans (i.e. Bardaisan) made himself a laughing-stock among Arameans and Greeks" thought to be St Ephram "and from Adam until the present time they were all of one speech and one language. They all spake this language, that is to say Syriac, which is Aramaic, and this language is the king of all languages. Now, ancient writers have erred in that they said that Hebrew was the first [language], and in this matter they have mingled an ignorant mistake in their writing. For all the languages that are in the world are derived from Syriac, and all the languages in books are mingled with it."

Severious of Antioch 465AD - 538AD "It is in this way we the Arameans, that is to say Syriacs..."

Chronicle of Zuqnin 504AD-505AD "As for the people who married (Syriac) women, sired Syriac children, and mixed with the Syriacs, and whom no one was able to distinguish from the Arameans, he quickly found out about them."

Gregorios Bar Hebraeus born 1226AD - 1286AD "You have not corrupted me in the barbaric, pagan astrology, but [instead] You have brought me to the eloquent Aramean-Syriac nation." "From Aram, that is Syria, we are saying Aramean [...], that is to say Syriac and from Aram, which is Harran, the city of the pagans, we are saying pagan"

Eastern Writers Yeshudad Bishop of Hadeetha 835AD "The Greek translation calls all Aram and Arameans 'Syrians'. Consequently Aram becomes the father of the Syriacs. For this reason, those living in Mesopotamia were called Arameans"

ANCIENT GREEK EXAMPLES

Strabo 63DC - 24AD "the people which the Greeks call Syrians call themselves Arameans"

Poseidonios from Apamea (ca. 135 BC - 51 BC) "The people we Greek call Syriacs, they call themselves Arameans"

Xenophon 430BC - 354BC "The king of the Assyrians subjected the Syrians [refering to the Arameans]"

JEWISH EXAMPLES The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament): With very few exceptions the word Aram was replaced with the word Syria, and the word Aramean was replaced with the word Syrian/Syriac. The name Assyrian was not changed

Flavius Josephus (37AD – 100 AD) "Aram had the Arameans, which the Greeks called Syriacs."

Eusebius of Caesarea (275AD – 339AD) "and from Aram the Arameans, which are also called Syriacs"

ARAB EXAMPLES Abu Al-husayn 895AD - 957AD "Tur Abdin is the mountain where remnants of the Aramean Syriacs still survive."

Hasan Bar Bahlul 963AD "Surus killed his brother and ruled in Mesopotamia, and his country was called Syria, in early times, we were called Arameans but when Surus ruled, the inhabitants of the country began to be called Suryoye (Syriacs)" Sr 76 (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

you may be able to add a few more examples.Sr 76 (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * These are rather controversial conclusion, Sr 76. Both Rollinger and Bunnens confirm them as synonyms. Your interpretation of "centuries" as "a short period" is kind of strange. Where is the so called switch explained? "Syrians" was used for Assyrians, Arameans - and others too. In Richard N. Frye's "Assyria and Syria: Synonyms", he mentions several examples of "Assyrian" and "Syrians" as synonyms;


 * "The use of both terms, with and without a-. is found in writings of authors living to the west of the Euphrates. In the 2nd century A.D., the satirist Lucian of Samosata reputedly wrote a book in Greek De Syria Dea [The Syrian goddess], which has survived. It contains interesting passages relevant to the usage of the terms "Syrian" and "Assyrian." The author says (par. 1): "I who write (this) am Assyrian." Later (par.11), he says, "he calls the people of Syria by the term Assyrian," and (par. 15), "he came to Syria, but the people beyond the Euphrates did not receive him" (cf. also pars. 23 and 59)"


 * "Macrobius, a writer of the 5th century and a pagan, wrote a book called Saturnalia which recalled antiquity and themes of Virgil in reaction against the Christian spirit of his day. In this book (1.23.14-16), he speaks of the cult in which the Assyrii (i.e., Syrians) dedicated offerings to the sun in the village of Heliopolis (modern Baalbek). This off-hand usage of Assyrian for Syrian by Macrobius indicates that the two forms, with and without a-, were in use, even for inhabitants of the baqaC Valley in modern Lebanon."


 * "The Carmelites in Iran, much later in the 17th century, were also not consistent in their usage of the terms "Syrian" and "Assyrian." We find in their writings the terms "Jacobite Syrian," "Eastern Assyrian," "Chaldaean," "Syrian," and Assyrian.l4 One may say that the words were used almost interchangeably, and the assertion by some that the word "Assyrian" was a creation of Westerners in the eighteenth or 19th century is surely incorrect.l5"


 * Regarding the later Greek distinguishing between "Assyria" and "Syria" that you mention, he writes this:


 * "At some point, however, the Greeks began to distinguish between Syria=the Levant and Assyria=Mesopotamia, and Herodotus may represent a turning point in this separation. After him, the separate designations continued in use until the time of the Romans and to the present in the West. The Romans made a Roman province of Syria with its capital at Antioch under Pompey in 62 B.C. By Byzantine times, the use of the word "Syrian" had expanded such that in writings of western Europe before the Arab conquests the subjects of the entire Byzantine Empire were, at times, called Syrians."


 * In Parpola's "Assyrian Identity in Ancient Times and Today" Table II (based on Nöldeke 1871) shows how some authors used Assyria(ns) and Syria(ns) as synonyms during the centuries. Parpola has some views on this too, but what does it matter when you dismiss his works as nonsense every time (even though people as Hayim Tadmor, frequently quoted by you, worked together and used many of Parpolas work).


 * I have a question here too, when Nöldeke is talking about "this nation", isn't he refering to the ancient Arameans, which I guess "Die Namen der aramäischen Nation und Sprache" is about?


 * I would like to add that the so called "Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis" is nothing but a self-proclaimed scholar. Shmayo (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Shmayo, As I wrote numerous times, both Rollinger and Bunnens with others considered the terms Syrian and Assyrian as synonyms, initially. They also acknowledge this changed. This change is mentioned in the sources i provided a number of times, including Rollinger.

Actually the views above are NOT controversial, they are the concunsus. It is Richard Frye's views that are controversial and he has been criticized for it in academic works including J.Joseph's.

Richard Frye the Iranialogist that married a modern-Assyrian Eden Nebbi, he has a tenancy to dissect certain bits of information and feed this to the modern-Assyrians as support. Unlike Parpola, Frye has not gone as far as to write that the modern-Assyrians are the descendants of the ancient-Assyrians, he simply throws them a tid-bits here and there to allow the modern-Assyrians to form their own far-fetched conclusions. For example, In Frye's paper "Assyria and Syria: Synonyms":

1) He started "the Assyrians ATTEMPTED to assimulate the Arameans...". However made no mention of the fact that the Assyrians were not successful in their attempt to assimilate the Arameans. Til this day modern-Assyrians incorrectly claim the Assyrians assimilated the Arameans.

2) He writes that the Armenians (not to be confused with Arameans) called the Syriacs, "Asori". But leaves out the part that Armenian word for Assyrian is "Asorestants’i" and hence defining the "Asori" different to "Asorestants’i". Til this day modern-Assyrian incorrectly claim the Armenian word "Asori" means Assyrian.

3) Macrobius, we have already dealt with the issues of the Greek and Roman usage during the Christian period.

4) The Carmelites??? Some obscure tribe in Iran? Your ancestors started calling themselves Suryoye (Syriac) because of centuries of Greek/Roman political, religious and cultural influence. If the Carmelites "One may say that the words were used almost interchangeably", does that define you? Frye is not even committing to it: "One may say". Are the indigenous nations of North America, Indian? No, but the person that called them Indians had a cultural influence and that created an insensitive incorrect synonymity. The Carmelites didn't have a cultural influence, hence no Synonym.

So far as Herodotus is concerned: Yes, Helm identified him as having distinction with the terms Syria and Assyria. This is mentioned in the sources I provided.

Think about it @Shmayo, If Parpola is familiar with Nöldeke's work and still came up with the conclusion "the Arameans stopped calling themselves Arameans", then it is all the more reason why YOU should start dismissing Parpola's works.

Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis is an Associate Professor at the Somali International University (SIU) – Mogadishu Sr 76 (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not the consensus, it's nothing but your own conclusions. Pro-Aramean Joesph's reply to Frye does not make it controversial. The reason for this publication was, as Frye writes in his reply, "in answer to the assertion that the word Syria was anancient Egyptian word and did not realize the hornets’ nest of modern Assyriandisputes which arose. I do stand by the last sentences of my article, with theadded observation that disputes over the use of the word Syrian/Assyrian remindsone of the disputes by Western Christian theologians in the Middle Ages over thenumber of angels who could dance on a pin point". Here is his reply, if you have not read it already. The above quotes by Frye proves the already obvious, that Syrian and Assyrian have been used as synonyms. The four points above are your own thoughts. And yes, this have changed, a multiple of times too. Frye did describe this too, see the last quote above. Just as Syria(n) refer to something different today. To claim that it was used "exclusively to refer to the Arameans" (which was the switch I was asking for above) is absurd. As Frye wrote: "By Byzantine times, the use of the word "Syrian" had expanded such that in writings of western Europe before the Arab conquests the subjects of the entire Byzantine Empire were, at times, called Syrians". Shmayo (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not being realistic, it's like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I provided 16 references from 8 different academics. You provided 1, with his biases.

Not only do my sources refer to the consensus between one another, that Syriac is a synonym for Aramean. They also refer to the consensus among ancient Syriac writers that Syriac is a synonym for Aramean.

Further more, from the sources: - The Greeks derived the name Syriac - They then applied it exclusively to the people that called themselves Arameans - Your ancestors knew the Greeks called them Syriacs - Your ancestors then took this Greek term Syriac and applied to themselves - Your ancestors continually referred to the Synonymity of the word Syriac and Aramean

Then comes your reference: - some 1500 years later in the 17th century AD, some little know tribe from Iran called the Carmelites with no influence, MAY have used the term Syriac and Assyrian interchangeably.

'''Your ancestors took the name Syriac from the Greeks some time in the early centuries of Christianity, NOT the Carmelites in the 17th century AD. So even if Frye is correct, it has nothing to do with you and your ancestors. '''

If you have a problem with the use of the term "exclusively", that's fine. Because that was only the perspective of the Greeks, the Romans, the Jews, the Syriac Arameans and pretty much everyone else that mattered. You can have the Carmelites in the 17thC A.D. Sr 76 (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Reworked: Just Quotes from academics:

ACADEMICS CONFIRMING THE SYNONYMITY OF SYRIAN AND ARAMEAN

Theodor Noldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar Page iv "From the time the Greeks came to have a more intimate acquaintance with Asia, they designated by the name 'Syrians' the people who called themselves 'Arameans'."

Theodor Nöldeke, Assyrios Syrios Syros, in Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie, Hermes 5, Berlin 1871 page 460 "The main body of the population of all these wide landscapes from the Mediterranean Sea to beyond the Tigris belonged to a certain nationality, that of the Arameans." page 461 "It is well understandable that people have started to transfer the name of the country to the most important nationality and so the name 'syrian' was apprehended ethnological and was equated with 'aramaic'." page 468 "Since the times of Alexander [the Great], if not already somewhat earlier, people have started to transfer the name of the Syrians exclusively over the prevailing in Syria nationality, and in this way this originally political-geographical term became an ethnological one that was identified with the local Arameans."

Theodor Noldeke, Die Namen der aramäischen Nation und Sprache,” in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 25 (1871) page 131 "Regarding the name of this nation and its language is the original 'Aramean’ in essence also the only one, that for the employment of the present-day scholarship as yet strongly fits.”

Karl Eduard Sachau, Verzeichnis der Syrischen Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin von Eduard Sachau 1. Abteilung, Berlin 1899 Page i "The nation of the Arameans: This national name later, mainly in consequence of Jewish-Christian literature influences, gave way to the Greek designation Syrians."

Prof. Dietrich Hermann Hegewisch, Die Aramäer oder Syrer; ein kleiner Beitrag zur allgemeinen Weltgeschichte, Berlinische Monatschrift, 2, 1794 page 193 "Do not the Syrians, as they are usually called, or the Arameans, as they in fact are termed, deserve more attention in world history than they are usually given?" page 197 "The names Syria, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, etc. stem from the Greeks, who were not familiar with the true geography of these lands when the names first started to be used. Later, partly because of continuing ignorance and partly because of convenience despite having accurate knowledge, they persisted in using them since it would have required something of an effort to give up the old, familiar names and divisions of the countries and switch to the new ones, even if they were more accurate. The old, true, and single name of these lands is Aram; it is mentioned numerous times in the Bible of the Old Testament, and Greek scholars were also familiar with it and probably described the population of these areas as Arameans, though seldom, as they usually continued to use the term Syrian, which had been familiar to the Greeks." page 307 "The Syrians or Arameans were not merely a numerous and large people, they were also a much cultivated people."

Theodor Mommsen, The History of Rome, written between 1854 and 1856, Leipzig, by Theodor Mommsen, Book First Chapter One "the Arameans defended their nationality with the weapons of intellect as well as with their blood against all the allurements of Greek civilization and all the coercive measures of eastern and western despots, and that with an obstinacy which no Indo- Germanic people has ever equalled, and which to us who are Occidentals seems to be sometimes more, sometimes less, than human."

S.P.Brock and J.F.Coakley, Syriac Heritage Encylopedic Dictionary page 31 "In many Syriac writers Aramoyo[Aramean] and Suryoyo [Syriac] are synonyms; normally this refers to the language, but on occasion they are used as alternate ethnic terms"

Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard/Article/Aram-Nahrin--the-Aramaeans--the-Bible--Christianity--and-the-West/27211 "The Semitic Arameans ('not to be confused with "Armenians") underwent a change of name after they had embraced Christianity and were then called "Syrians", in order to be distinguished from the Arameans who were not converted. However, this should not be confused with the present-day Syrian Arabs."

R.Zadok, "The Ethno-Linguistic Character of the Jezireh and Adjacent Regions in the 9th-7th centuries (Assyria Proper vs Periphery),"(1995) page 280 "These Arameans were presumably the forerunners of the sizable Syriac-speaking population of this region during the Byzantine and later periods"

John Joseph, Assyria and Syria: Synonyms? page 37 "FIRST: WESTERN USAGE OF 'SYRIA' AND 'ASSYRIA': There was a time when the West [the Greeks], not fully familiar with the Near East, did not differentiate between Syria and Assyria, especially when the Assyrians were still in power. But as early as the fifth century B.C., about two centuries after the fall of Nineveh, Herodotus very clearly differentiated between the two terms and regions. Randolph Helm’s researches show that Herodotus “conscientiously” and “consistently” distinguished the names Syria and Assyria and used them independently of each other." page 38 "page he even speaks of “the long-accepted statement of Herodotus (7.63) that the Greeks called Assyrians by the name Syrian without initial a-.” On the following page he notes that Herodotus “may represent a turning point” in the separation of the two terms." ..... "When the Greeks became better acquainted with the Near East, especially after Alexander the Great overthrew the Achaemenian empire in the 4th century B.C., and then the Greeks and Romans ruled the region for centuries, they restricted the name Syria to the lands west of the Euphrates. During the 3rd century B.C., when the Hebrew bible was translated into the Greek Septuagint for the use of the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria, the terms Aramean and Aramaic of the Hebrew Bible were translated into 'Syrian' and 'the Syrian tongue' respectively."

SYRIAC ARAMAIC EXAMPLES

S.P.Brock and J.F.Coakley, Syriac Heritage Encylopedic Dictionary page 31 "Bardaisan is described as Suryoyo [Syrian] and Aramoyo [Aramean]" "Ya'qub of Edessa, in his 'Encheiridion' and elsewhere, speaks of 'we are Suryoye [Syriacs], or Aramoye [Arameans]'." "This equation [Syriac = Aramean] is further elaborated in Appendix II to Michael Rabo's [Michael the Syrians] Chronicle." (see the Dorothea Weltecke below for the actual Michael the Syrian's quote)

Crone Cook, Hagarism page 196 "they [Nestorians or Eastern Syriacs] quite frequently speak of themselves and their language as Aramean"

Dorothea Weltecke,Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East Page: 119 "Things become less clear when we try to decide his position concerning secular and ethnic identity. It is obvious that for Michael the ancient Near East had a very special importance. The ancient Near East recurred in the Chronicle. In the heading of his Appendix II Michael states: 'With the help of God we write down the memory of the kingdoms which belong in the past to our Aramean people, that is, sons of Aram, who are called Suryoye [Syriacs], this people from Syria'....This statement seems to be straightforward enough. But compared to other phrases, some contradictions arise. Following the work by Flavius Josephus (37-after 100 CE) through intermediaries, Michael explains the change of the name of ancient Near Eastern people end empires through the changes by the Greeks 'The Arameans were called Syrians by the Greeks and Oturoye were called Assyrians.' This statement is in accordance with the sentence just quoted." Sr 76 (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Legends/Mythology used as historical evidence to promote notions of Assyrian Continuity
I have listed a number of sources that addressed the issue of a couple of Assyrian names that appear in stories during the Christian period, it should be noted that in each case, that these names refer to individuals or characters not the ethnic population. These names such as Tatian "the Assyrian", Sennacherib and Nimrod, are applied during the Christian period to people from the direct region of Assyria (Mousol and it surrounds) to elevate the individuals status and the agenda of the story teller. I'm not suggesting the Characters in these stories are fictional, because they weren't, the stories around them are.

We see this "Assyrianizing affect" in the ledgends such as the Ledgend of Mar Qardagh, Life of Mar Behnam some of which can be considered fictional. This fictional aspect of these stories is not mention on the Assyrian People page, but rather uses these Assyrian names as evidence of Assyrian continuety. It should not be ignored that these Myths/Ledgends were written centuries after the supposed events took place.

This Source needs explaining.

This was a correspondence between Patricia Crone and John Joseph, and currently sits in the footnote on page 27 of Joseph's book "The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East: A History of Their Encounter with ...". The reason is Crone and Cook's book titled "Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World" is currently being used by modern-Assyrians such as G.V.Yana to as proof of there Assyrian ancestry. So John Joseph being a modern-Assyrian and refutes the claims of the mordern-Assyrians wrote to Crone for an explanation and the following is her response:

In a letter to John Joseph, dated June 11, 1997 Patricia Crone wrote that she and Cook: “[We] do not argue that the Nestorians of pre-Islamic Iraq saw themselves as Assyrians or that this is what they called themselves. They called themselves Suryane [Syriac], which had no greater connotation of Assyrian in their usage than it did in anyone else's…. We take it for granted that they got the modern Assyrian label from the West and proceeded to reinvent themselves… Of course the Nestorians were Arameans.”

Other Sources

Adam H Becker The Ancient Near East in the Late Antique Near East: Syriac Christian Appropriation of the Biblical East p 5-6 "The biblical Assyria shows up in a number of Syriac sources and serves as a paradigm for understanding events as diverse as saints’ lives and the Arab conquest." ..... "A tendency to auto-orientalize appears in some of the earliest of eastern Christian sources: for example, the second century Tatian’s strong self-identification as a barbaros Assyrian vis-à-vis the Greek radition." ..... "(With this it is worth noting Drijvers’ elevation of Tatian to central but forgotten importance in earliest Syriac Christianity.) This process was facilitated by the continuing use of the geographical name Assyria or Asorestan in Middle Persian in the Sasanian era."

Joel Thomas Walker Legacy of Mesopotamia in late antiquie iraq page 495 "While some details of the History may be based on actual fourth-century people and events, the bulk of its narrative is pious fiction reflecting the interests and assumptions of the saint's biographer. We do not know precisely when or where this hagiograoher wrote. Infrance drawn from his account imply the he was an East-Syrian monk (or layman) resident in northern Iraq during the reign of Khusro II (590-628)." page 501 "The saint's royal 'Assyrian' genealogy us ab integral part of this image. In an approach typical of Christian exegesis, it elides any distinction between the ancient 'pagan' traditions of Mesopotamia and Persia." ..... "Nimrod and, to a lesser extent, Sennacherib were popular figures in the exegetical traditions of late antiquity. The bried passages describing them in the Bible served as a starting point for wide-ranging analysis and speculation by Jewish and Christian scholars. Their position in the Qardagh legend is suggestive of the way in which memories of ancient Assyria were reinterpreted through the prisms of exegesis and folklore."

Joel Thomas Walker The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq page 248 "The veneration of Mar Qardagh offers an intriguing case study in the origin and evolution of an East-Syrian martyr cult. This investigation requires looking deep into the pre Christian history of Melqi, the anceint shrine near Arbela that hosted the annual festival of Mar Qardagh. Qardagh's hagiographer [250 years after the events in question] introduces his hero as coming from "the stock of the kingdom of the Assyrians", the descendant via his father of the "renowned linaged of the house of Nimrod" and via his mother of the "renowned linage of the house of Sennacherib". While the royal "Assyrian" linage has attracted the notice of several previous commentators, this chapter introduces new evidence for its significance by demonstrating that the laste Sasanian buildings at Melqi stood directly over the ruins of a major Neo-Assyrian temple, the akitu-shrine of the goddess Ishtar of Arbela. Cuneiform documents of the nintth-seventh centuries B.C.E."

page 249 "The Christian storytellers who created the Qardagh legend knew only that the fortress on top of the tell at Melqi had been built by a powerful hero of royal 'Assyrian' linage." page 253 "The Christian literary sources are thus of particular importance and must be interpreted carefully. On the basis of a single martyr narrative, it has reventlu been argued that the Ishtar temple of Arbela "probably flourished intil the fourth century A.D", But the text in question, the East-Syrian Acts of Aithalaha the (Pagan) Priest and Hafsai the Prient, is fiction molded upon the earlier martyr literature from Edessa. The paucity of reliable literary texts and archaeology on pre-Sasanian Adiabene amplifies the need to weigh carefull the images preserved in the Qardagh legend." page 277 "The anonymous History of Mar Qardagh introduces a hero of royal "Assyria" ancestry, decendended from the "renowned lineages" of Sennacherib and Nimrod. The ledgend also explains how Christians began to worship and to trade beneath the tell at Melqi. The following chronology, while strictly provisional. outlines the process of Christianization: Stage 1. The Neo-Assyrian cult site Milqia was resettled at an indeterminate time during the Sasanian period. A fortress was built on top of the mound created by earlier phases of occupation. A Zoroastrian fire temple was apparently built at the base of the tell, and an annual six-day market was convended at the site. Stage 2. Beginning ca 500 Christian visitors to the annual market at Melqi developed stories a regional Sasanian official (marzban) who built the fortress and later converted to Christianity, It is possible that these stories Stage 3. An anonymous hagiographer, writing ca 600-630, molded the Qardagh legend into a single, coherent, and polished narrative, the History of Mar Qardagh."

..... p 14 "Joel Walker, in his recent book as well as in an article in the journal ARAM, suggests that, however “reinterpreted through the prisms of exegesis and folklore”, there were “memories of ancient Assyria” within the Christian community of the later Sasanian Empire. Walker’s work focuses on the Legend of Mar Qardagh, a perhaps early seventh century martyr text whose cult site at Melqi, an unknown site outside of Arbela, seems to have been the important Neo-Assyrian site of Milqia, where the akitu temple of the goddess, Ishtar of Arbela, stood. Based on the suggestion of Paul Peeters, Walker argues that “the Qardagh legend must have developed as a narrative that explained, for a Christian audience, how the tell at Melqi became a center for trade and religious observance.”

"Corresponding to the spatial continuity of the Milqia/Melqi site is the connections the Legend of Mar Qardagh draws between its hero and the ancient Near East. In typical classical biographical style the text describes Qardagh’s lineage."

"Now holy Mar Qardagh was from a great people (gens ) from the stock of the kingdom of the Assyrians (’ t r y ). His father was descended from the renowned lineage of the house of Nimrod, and his mother from the renowned lineage of the house of Sennacherib. And he was born of pagan parents lost in the error of Magianism."

"Walker astutely goes through the place of Nimrod and Sennacherib in late antique, particularly Syriac, exegesis. Beyond this it is worth noting the popularity within the region as a whole of Nimrod, the primordial king of Genesis transformed in later tradition into a giant who persecuted Abraham. The Acts of Mar Mari, a text that purports to describe the origins of Christianity in the East but in"

Page 16 "Another text that engages in the kind of “Assyrianizing” I am addressing is the Life of Mar Behnam, where Sennacherib, the Zoroastrian (!) king of Assyria, as well as his children convert to Christianity after miraculous healings." ..... "I suspect that parallels to the kind of scriptural self-localization that I have been discussing can also be found in Rabbinic sources, however, with one significant difference. In the opposite way, the Rabbis — no matter how many centuries Jews lived in Mesopotamia and however much the relationship between Palestine and Babylonia was renegotiated" Sr 76 (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The false representation of Mar Behnam and Mar Qardah's assyrian identity was removed from this Assyrian People page, by myself(if i remember correctly). I added these references on the talk page to make sure people making edits to the page don't reinsert them on politically motivated grounds as is usually the case on this page. The explanation of why this section was collapsed is illogical and warrants further examination.

We see this same problem of Mar Behnam and Mar Qardah's appearing on other page such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar_Behnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar_Qardagh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinharib

Sr 76 (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Bilingual Dictionary Definitions of the words Syriac and Assyrian
Dictionary definitions of the Term Suryoyo (ܣܘܪܝܐ / ܣܘܪܝܝܐ)

S.J Louis Costaz, Dictionnaire Syriaque-Francis, Syriac-English Dictionary: Suryoyo/Suroyo (ܣܘܪܝܐ / ܣܘܪܝܝܐ) Syrien, Syriaque [in French], Syrian, Syriac [in English]

D.D.J Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible: Syria/ Syrians – See Aram, Arameans.

R. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary ܣܘܪܝܝܐ (Suryoyo) a) Syrian, Palestinian, Chaldeans i.e. ancient Syrians. b) Syriac.

Margoliouth Dictionary: ܣܘܪܝܝܐ: a) a Syrian Palestinian b) Syriac, the Syriac version

Zitoun, Bukhro English Syriac Dictionary: Syriac (ܣܘܪܝܐ / ܣܘܪܝܝܐ) Suryoyo, Syrian (ܣܘܪܝܐ / ܣܘܪܝܝܐ) Suryoyo

Eugine Manna Syriac Arabic Dictionary: ܣܘܪܝܝܐ (Suryoyo): Suryani Arami (Syriac Aramean)

Dictionary definitions of the Term Ashuroyo (ܐܬܘܪܝܐ)

Zitoun, Bukhro English Syriac Dictionary: Assyrian (ܐܬܘܪܝܐ) Othuroyo

Margoliouth Dictionary: ܐܬܘܪܝܐ (Othur) Assyrians ܐܬܘܪܝ (Othur) Region of Assyria ܐܬܘܪܝܘܬܐ (Othuroyotho) Assyrianism

Sr 76 (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Jumping to Assyrian People
I just search for "Syriac People" and it jumped to "Assyrian People", why is it doing this???!! --ArameanSyriac (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's wrong, it needs to change. --ZhangFeii (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @ArameanSyriac I advise you to take a look into the archives of the Assyrian people and Syriac people articles on Wikipedia and you will notice that this mess occurred due to poor administration of some Wikipedia admins here who are not familiar with this topic. They gave a certain group of Syriac Christians a free pass to spread their ideological agenda and got backing from most Wikipedia admins. Where is the neutrality of those admins here!? They don't even bother to fix this mess. German Wikipedia fixed this problem by creating identity articles rather than ethnicity articles. This means that you would have articles about the modern Assyrians "Assyrians (present)" and about the ancient pre-Christian nation called "Assyrians". The current Assyrian people article reflects the idea of Assyrian ideology, where only members of the Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church, Syriac Orthodox Church and Syriac Catholic Church are part of their "Assyrian" nation with the idea to be the descendants of the ancient Assyro-Akkadian nation. The Syriac-Arameans disagree with them on that and reject the Assyrianization of their Aramean heritage. Most Syriac-Aramean articles were either removed, falsified or redirected to the Assyrian people article, because of alleged content fork. Interestingly none of the Syriac-Aramean content of the Syriac people page was accommodated to this page, so much for the content fork claim by the Assyrian fraction and the Wikipedia admins. I am wondering when the admins will redirect Christianity and Judaism to the Islam article. The name or ethnicity conflict is a serious problem, but to ignore the Syriac-Aramean people totally and by giving the Assyrians more credit than other Syriac Christians is the wrong way to solve this problem on Wikipedia at least.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * But don't they realize how wrong this is? what can be done about it? I have read the page it's just Assyrian nationalism there is no real information Syrius777 (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @Syrius777 We need more Wikipedians to get involved into this topic and especially neutral admins. Last year in December, we have tried to find a solution, but only a few people were involved into this discussion. Ironically the discussion was led by one of the admins who is responsible for this mess and the redirection of the Syriac (Aramean) people article to the Assyrian people article without a valid reason. Why is there a WikiProjectAssyria, instead of a WikiProjectArameans or WikiProjectChaldeans? I mean their name and so called ethnicity is not less disputed. Why do they have a higher status on English Wikipedia in comparison to other Syriac Christians? Like I said many, many times before, this is not a simple name conflict among the Syriac Christians about which group has the nicest sounding name. People need to understand that Syriac-Arameans and Assyrians have a !fundamental! different point of view of defining their ethnicity/nation, so that it would be inaccurate to call an Aramean 'Assyrian' or an Assyrian 'Aramean'. German Wikipedia fixed this problem by creating identity group articles (Assyrer (Gegenwart) and Aramäer (Christentum)), instead of following a certain ideology, even though Syriac Christians, including the Assyrians and Chaldeans, are commonly known as Aramäer (Arameans) in Germany. You can use both names on German Wikipedia, because German Wikipedia distinguishes between modern Arameans and Assyrians and the ancient pre-Christian nations.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The assyrians are just a political creation, they are Syriac Arameans. The whole assyrian history is just a bad story from the british. Iphoneonderdeel (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Why more people? Why would more people being involved fix this? Syrius777 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

More people will not really help, they will just end up getting blocked because they don't understand the Wikipedia rules and Wiki-Admin are just tired of this issue. The reality is in the hands of the Wikipedia Administrators to correct the issue. They know the sources are lacking and most of the content is simply false.

My original solution was to have Aramean People page and Assyrian People page and Chaldean People Page referring to the modern-Day Arameans/Assyrians/Chaldeans. With the ancient pages separate. Now I am thinking since there was a consensus at the time to keep them on the one page and change the name of the page to accommodate all the appellations appropriately.Sr 76 (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Aram is equivalent to Syria; Syria is what the Greeks called Aram. Some Bible translations choose one or the other; I tend to use both designations. Many Bibles also tend to sometimes use one, and then sometimes use the other, even though they are translating the same exact word (e.g., the ESV, LITV, KJV, etc). In fact, there are surprisingly few English translations which maintain some consistency here (Young’s translation does, as we would expect; as well as the BBE, ECB, ERV, God’s Word™, HCSB, etc.). The Complete Apostles Bible, which is a translation from the Greek, consistently has Syria rather than Aram (which makes sense, as Syria is the Greek word for Aram). In the original Hebrew text and Aramaic text, there is no word which can be transliterated Syria; only Aram.

User:Caliph Ibrahim Caliph el Muslemin Caliph el Muslemin   — Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ref of previous source clean discussion for the page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14#Identification_of_modern-Assyrian_Sources_on_the_page

Sr 76 (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request on 25 June 2015

 * ❌ Please note that no renaming of this article is going to happen without a formal WP:RM process and a clear consensus based on valid reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Resolving the long running issue of edit-warring and disputes and references and the page content will be consistent the academic consensus.

Solution Change the name of the article to the following: "Syriac People (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)"

This will page will refer to the common Christian period leaving all political POVs ambiguous from their ancient namesakes. Leaving the "Arameans" page, "Assyrians" page and "Chaldeans" page to refer to the ancient peoples. None of these groups can deny their Syriac identity, if they did they would need to forgo 2000 years of heritage.

The page should reflect on the common name (Syriac) that is not contentious, but then refer and explain the 3 current politically-national designations that all happen to be labeled based on the ancient names.

Currently the page name Assyrian is not only disputed but is the reflection of the ONE political ideal. That leads to offence and disputes and to put it simply it is historically incorrect. Please see the below link of what the name Suryoyo actually translates to in the European languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Bilingual_Dictionary_Definitions_of_the_words_Syriac_and_Assyrian

Time line of existing appellations

Ancient Period: ancient names regardless of historical and political persuasion are: Arameans/Assyrians/Chaldeans Christian Period: Syriac Modern Period: 1600s Vatican give the break-away group from the Nestorians the title "Chaldeans" as a religious designation. (They continue to called themselves Suraya - Syriac) 1860s introduction of the name Assyrian (They continue to called themselves Suraya - Syriac) 1950s regenesis of the name Aramean as a means to combat Assyrianism, the name Aramean was mainly considered a Synonym for many Syriac scholars (They continue to called themselves Suryoyo - Syriac)

Reasoning The name Syriac (Suryoyo) is accepted by all the Arameans, Assyrians and Chaldeans. All Christian Churches from the near east trace their origins to Syriac tradition including the Maronites (how can people that far west be Assyrian's?), all have a Syriac Aramaic liturgy.

Syriac avoids the complex historical issues and the problem of people promoting their own political ideologies. Since every ideology does not deny the Syriac identity. What an individual considers his ancient ancestors becomes irrelevant, since the term Syriac only came to be used by the Syriacs themselves during the Christian period. Naming the page Syriac People (Arameans/Assyrians/Chaldeans) causes little historical contention. This also makes finding sources and references for the page very simple and compliant with the academic consensus.

Right now, none of the page has any valid sources, because Assyrian history since the fall of Ninveh in 615BC (from the perspective of the modern-Assyrians) was simply made up by the modern-Assyrians that got their name in the 19th cenurty.

Calling the page "Syriac People (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)" is verifiable, Non Original research and Neural view point.

Calling the page "Assyrian People" falls short on all fronts is NOT-verifiable, NOT-Non Original research and NOT-Neural view point. All violations of the Wikipedia naming protocols

Changing the name to "Syriac People (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)" would comply with the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.

Current Ambiguity. The page being called Assyrian people does not distinguish between the modern-Assyrians and the ancient-Assyrians, naturally this happens to be the ideological agenda of the modern-Assyrians.

The current academic consensus considers the modern-Assyrian identity to be introduced by Western Missionaries during the 19th century A.D and any ancestral connection between the two, to be "hog wash". The widely criticized Simon Parpola is the "only academic" that supports the claims of the modern-Assyrian's ancestry, please see the following sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14#Origin.27s_of_today.27s_Assyrian_Identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14#Reference_-_Simon_Parpola

The Synonymity issue becomes a void argument.

Weather synonymity of the word Syriac is with Aramean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Syrian.2FSyriac_synonyms_with_Aramean) or the word Syriac is Synonymous with Assyrian, with my proposal either answer becomes irrelevant. What do i mean by this:

If the Assyrians are correct, and word Syriac means Assyrian then the why would they object to the page being called Syriac People instead of Assyrian people? Any objection is politically driven. If the Arameans are correct, and word Syriac means Aramean then the why would they object to the page being called Syriac People instead of Aramean people? Any objection is politically driven.

By doing this Wiki-Admin can easily identify ideological and political POVs being inserted into Wikipedia pages.

The St Ephram the Syrian example St Ephram called the Assyrians "Filth". He also refered to "our nation Aram-Nahrin". His contenporaries called him "Aramean" and "the crown of the Arameans"

It is impossible to look up any refence that refers to St Ephram as an Assyrian and yet St Ephriam the Syrian is displayed on the Assyrian People page as an Assyrian. The ONLY way St Ephriam can be an Assyrian is to accomodate a political POV of the modern-Assyrians....that is: The current page.

Consistency with Academic Sources Wikipedia has become inconsistent with the academic sources. Right now looking at Wikipeadia would send someone in a direction of complete confusion. Even the further reading section of the page, does not match the content of the page, the Saint Ephriam example above is a good example of this.

Sr 76 (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I prefer Aramean because official translations translate the name Aram as Syrian (Syriac), but it is better to use the name Syriac because the two groups of Assyrians and Syriacs always make quarrel. Syriac sits between the two, and both use that name to identify themselves.


 * Caliph el Muslemin 13:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Caliph el Muslemin  13:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caliph Ibrahim (talk • contribs)


 * Changing the name to "Syriac people (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)" (Or simply Syriac people) would be a good choice or may be also the name "Syriac Christians (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)" (Or simply Syriac Christians) would be a good choice for an umbrella term in order to reflect their affiliation to the Syriac Christianity, and leave the pages for each group Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans separate without overlapping and putting together one group within another group's page.  MaronitePride (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, the separate pages did exist at one point: "Syriac People", "Assyrian People" and "Chaldean People". But the page Syriac People was removed, because of concerns of a content fork. Leaving just the "Assyrian People" page, which is why i put my proposal in the way that it is. As per the rules of the page all significant changes much be discusses on the Talk page, which is what I have done. Changing the name to "Syriac people (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)" is a significant change, so I am free to make the change.Sr 76 (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think Syriac People would be the most appropriate, rather than Syriac Christians as that is also used to refer to the St. Thomas Christians of Kerala and thus would incorporate non-Syriac people. To have the primary identities in the title is not necessary, I feel, as that can be covered in the article itself. To work with the existing category framework, Syriac people should include the Aramean and Assyrian people categories. The Assyrian/Syriac category should be deleted. Mugsalot (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The best choice would be "Assyrian/Syriac people" as it reflects the position of all our leading movements (Assyrian and Syriac nationalists) and also the churches that we're one people. Then in the same page you can add sub categories or redirect to pages for each church denominations (Syriacs Orthodox/Catholics, Assyrian/Nestorians, Chaldeans), just like for the French people who have a page for each people (Bretons, Catalans, Corsicans, Basques...) who are part of the French nation. More over "Syriac people" alone should not be used as it's not as popular as the Assyrian term: you can see by yourself in Google Trends which collect data from 2004. We should remember that the most popular term in the language of the page should be used. "Syriac Christians" also should not be used as it can include Indians Christians and Maronites who don't speak our language, don't share our history and are different ethnically. &#39;AynHaylo (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Mugsalot and also MaronitePride are correct that the umbrella term Syriac people (with or without specification for Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans) would be the most appropriate, rather than Assyrian/Syriac people, which would eliminate the Aramean people (those people that are West of the Euphrates river, who are ethnically different from the populations East of the Euphrates river as the Assyrian people (or Chaldean people). And the Assyrian/Syriac category should be deleted.


 * Catalans and Basques do not see themselves to belong to the French nation. Most of their populations reside within the Spanish territory and even there they do not identify as Spanish people (more specifically they do not identify as Castilian Spanish people). Therefore, it is not an appropriate example for the issue here. Sprayitchyo (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @Sprayitchyo In an ideal world I too would prefer "Syriac People". But as @AynHaylo has demonstrated there will always be people that REFER to (hopefully not impose) nation/political agendas and this is understandable since the page refers to these movements in its contents. By grouping "Syriac People (Arameans/Assyrians/Chaldeans)" together in the title in the way that i have suggested, it sends a direct statement to all editors that the labels are all considered equal on the page and the appellation Syriac is unique in it's lack of contention and historical position.


 * It demonstrates to readers and new editors on the page, that a high level of mutual respect between all these groups is establish on the page and that Wikipedia is not here to propagate people's political biases. By calling the page "Syriac People" it leaves a small opening in editor's thinking that they can manipulate the page, by calling it "Syriac People (Arameans/Assyrians/Chaldeans)", it leaves no doubt in people's minds as to what the content is and how these groups are going to be dealt with on the page. Please do not refer to separation of Arameans or Chaldeans based on historical grounds in this section, because the discussion will just snowball into something else....especially without sources. I am trying to put an end to bickering about this issue, at least on Wikipedia.


 * For example based on what you have written, "Syriac People" would leave room for people to take issue if there was any form of Aramean content on the page and remove it...starting an editing-war. "Syriac People (Arameans/Assyrians/Chaldeans)" defines the content much better and prevents these problems.
 * Sr 76 (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you guys don't understand something: The people of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Churches, Church of the East and Chaldean Catholics have always seen themselves as one people. From the time of the Kingdom of Edessa, the emergence of Nsibin, Omid (Dyarbakir), Urmia, Rish'Ayno, Mardin, Midyat, the Nineveh plains to the Seyfo and the awaking of nationalism and armed groups (Battaillon Assyro-Chaldéens in Gozarto, The army led by Agha petrus (though mostly composed of Chaldeans and Nestorians)) and today the MFS and GPU in Syria, the NPU and the NPF, who was and are always composed of Nestorians, Chaldeans and Syriacs orthodox/catholics. Note also that all of them speak a dialect of eastern Aramaic.


 * So this page is for this people and not for Maronites or others people "West of Euphrates", Greek orthodox/Catholics from Syria, Lebanon, Israel who today a very little minority of them identify as Aramean, and this started just 10-20 years ago for them (though for Maronites it's different).


 * By putting "Assyrian/Syriac people" it refers to the Assyrian nationalim (present in all 3 church), the Syriac/Aramean nationalism of the Syriac orthodox Church and Chaldean Church (recent words of Mar louis sako and before him Mar Emmanuel III Delly). It also refers to Syriac Christianity and it uses the most used word in the English language for this people.


 * And I do think that the example of the French nation is good, if you don't count Basques (though a good percentage of them see themselves as part of the French nation) you still have a page for Bretons, Corsicans and Catalans.&#39;AynHaylo (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @AynHaylo what you are suggesting gives primacy to the word Assyrian over Chaldean and Aramean and puts it on par with the word Syriac. For that reason it will not resolve any of the issues on Wikipedia. Besides these supposed facts that you have presented are not sourced and don't belong in this section. Sr 76 (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @AynHaylo Assyrian POV editing also includes to replace the terms Aramean or Syriac-Aramean, especially when it comes to Mesopotamian Syriac Christian related topics, with Syriac and then claiming in the article or the main article (Assyrian people: this is where Syriac people is currently redirected to) that the term Syriac ultimately and only means Assyrian to avoid any synonymity or ethnic connection of modern Mesopotamian Syriac Christians with Arameans. Nice try, AynHaylo and your other comments aren't even better regarding the defintion of ethnic identity/nation, which is obviously the idea of Assyrian nationalism. An ethnicity or ethnic group can be defined by origin, language, religion, culture, history etc. up to a certain point where individuals form a cohesion (See Israeli Maronites and Syriac-Orthodox Christians). You're trying to separate Mesopotamian Syriac-Arameans from other Syriac Christians in the Middle East by defining the idea of Assyrian nationalism, e.g. Eastern Aramaic. Should I point out that even within Eastern Aramaic the so called Aramaic dialects are rather languages like Spanish and Italian or Dutch and German. Don't tell me that you can easily communicate in Turoyo/Suryoyo with a Chaldean Neo-Aramaic or Assyrian Neo-Aramaic speaker. And what about the Kha b-Nisan (Assyrian New Year), which is not celebrated by the Western Suryoye (maybe except for those who call themselves Assyrian)? I could give more examples to make the Syriac Christians from Mesopotamia different nations to show your own behaviour. "The people of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Churches, Church of the East and Chaldean Catholics have always seen themselves as one people" You probably speak for yourself, because my family is from northeastern Syria, they and the others have always referred the Chaldeans and Assyrians (Assyrian Church of the East members) as distinct nations which are "simliar to us". But what I want to say is that this whole ethnicity/identity stuff about the Syriac Christians (Maronites, Melkites, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs) in the Middle East is a highly sensitive and complex subject in general and the best way is to keep it as neutral as possible.      --Suryoyo124 (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * These supposed facts ? Just to be clear: Greek Orthodox/Catholics and Maronites just have no idea of what is Nsibin, Edessa, the Seyfo etc. They have never fought with our people and this is a fact. Today the MFS is composed of Syriac orthodox and Assyrians Church of the East, they fought side by side with the Khabour guards and Tell Tamer guards. It's the same for Sutoro and Sootoro. The GPU (Gozarto protection forces) is also a mixed of Syriac Orthodox and Assyrians Church of the East. In Iraq the NPF (Nineveh protection forces) and the NPU (Nineveh protection units) are composed of Syriac Catholics/Chaldeans/Church of the East. So this a fact that other middle east Christians are not a part of our people and this is a reality. None of them are fighting with us. When Mor Aphrem Barsoum went to the league of nations he spoke for the 3 sects and not for Greek Orthodox/Catholics and Maronites. In Syria and Lebanon, is the Syriac union party composed of Greek Orthodox/Catholic or Maronites ? I don't think so and yet Maronites people and politicians do not see us as part of their people if so Maronites seats in the Lebanese parliament would be renamed Syriac/Aramean seats and would include Greek Orthodox/Catholics etc.
 * @Suryoyo124 My definition of ethnic of identity/ nation is based on history from Christianity to today and you can't ignore that the 20th century has been led by Assyrian nationalism, especially in the beginning.
 * What you are trying to do is like including Irish people into the English people. you are driven by an Aramaic agenda who desperately wants to include Greek Orthodox/Catholics and Maronites with our people but the reality has shown us that this peoples considers themselves to be Arabs Christians for the vast majority and they are not a part of our history. It's even difficult to include Greek Orthodox/Catholics into Syriac Christianity and yet you want to include them with us ? You can't ignore the fact that Greek Orthodox/Catholics and Maronites don't care about Nsibin, Edessa, Seyfo and our language.
 * My proposition gives primacy to the most used term in the English language by most media and people and it shows that we are part of Syriac Christianity. And it let you develop every sect into sub categories or pages so it is definitely a solution. I want to be clear that this pages if for this people and not for others people.
 * The position of Sr 76 is good but it forget that in English it's Assyrian that is the most used and will definitely result in editing and complaints though it is not even sure for my proposition but I believe it will not end into editing wars.&#39;AynHaylo (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In Germany, the common name for Suryoye/Suraye is 'Aramäer' (Arameans) yet those Suryoye/Suraye who call themselves Assyrians in Germany reject this term and want to be called 'Assyrer' (Assyrians). The same deal with Suryoye/Suraye who call themselves Arameans in English-speaking countries, who don't want to be called Assyrians, but Aramean. Like I said before it's not a simple name conflict among the Suryoye/Suraye. Both groups have a total different view about their ethnic identity/nation. Therefore it would be wrong to call an Assyrian Aramean or an Aramean Assyrian. Sr 76's Ephrem the Syrian example clearly shows this issue. German Wikipedia fixed this problem by creating an umbrella article called "Suryoye" and ethnic-identity articles called 'Assyrer (Gegenwart)' Assyrians (present) and Arameans (Christianity) and it works. German Wikipedia don't have to follow a certain ideology.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

'''People: Again, everybody, stop. Stop. Stop.''' You are again exchanging your personal opinions about the identity and history of your people(s). This is not the place to do that. Stop it. If anybody wishes to have this article renamed, do a proper WP:RM. In that RM, the only valid type of argument will be: what terms and what distinctions are applied to these people in reputable, outside, English-speaking academic sources? Any editor sidelining these arguments again with their own opinions and their own ideologies and their own views about history will be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@AynHaylo, Future Perfect at Sunrise

Neutral Umbrella term/article:

Sub-categories/articles of Syriac people (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans) or Syriac people, which are basically ethnic-identity articles:
 * Rename the "Assyrian people" article into "Syriac people (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)" or "Syriac people". Pre-Nationalism persons like Ephrem the Syrian are called Syriac and will be redirected to this page.

Important article:
 * Rename and modify Assyrian continuity, e.g. into Assyrians (Christians) about modern Assyrian nationalism. Modern Suryoye/Suraye like Rosie Malek-Yonan who see themselves as Assyrians are still called Assyrian, but it redirects to the Assyrians (Christians) article to distinguish between ancient and modern Assyrians.
 * Arameans (Christians) about modern Aramean nationalism.
 * Chaldeans (Christians) about modern Chaldean nationalism.

These articles are ONLY about the pre-Christian nations:
 * Name/Ethnicity conflict among modern Syriac Christians

Suryoyo124 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Assyrians
 * Arameans
 * Chaldeans


 * Congratulations Suryoyo124, it is the best formulated. Just go ahead with the procedure renaming of this/these article/s with the formal WP:RM process. MaronitePride (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you !!! The term is Syriac, easy.Sr 76 (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@AynHaylo this is not a popularity contest in the English use of Assyrian, Aramean or Chaldean. Even if it was, you couldn't correlate the results anyway. You are offering conclusions based on your own perspective.

The key issue is anyone that visits the page will be presented with information that is not consistent with academic texts. This will create inconsistencey when people do further research. The texts that support an Assyrian identity are generally those that are published by politically bias modern-Assyrians. And so this will always create issues on Wikipedia because of it's liberal editing rules. Every individual must put aside his personal preferences, in the same way I don't insist on Aramean.Sr 76 (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I have create a move request, to redirect the page to Syriac people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Requested_move_5_July_2015

Sr 76 (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015
I can't believe how the Assyrian movement has made this possible in just 50 years since the diaspora.. We are all Arameans and have nothing to do with the old Assyrians from the bible. Check all the academic sources like the work of Prof. S. Brock. Syriac have to be Arameans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.160.223.204 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Assyrian vs. Syrian naming controversy

According to Syriac Orthodox Church (1), unlike “Assyrianism”, the Aramaean-Syriac identity is an outcome of a living civilization that is represented by people with an identity, culture and active spoken language. Whereas “Assyrianism” artifically emerged in 1836 in Iraq, and has no living language or other cultural artefacts.(2)

It must be noted that already in 1871 the renown Prof. Th. Nöldeke(3) asserted that the only correct name for the Syriac people and their language/culture is ‘Aramean/Aramaic’. For ‘Syria(ns)’ is indeed, as Nöldeke pointed out, originally a Greek loanword that denotes the Aramaic name ‘Aram(eans)’. The significance of the Aramean people to the world was noted by [x] who stated “The Greeks and Romans knew the Near East mainly through the Arameans, for it was they who united and canalized the sources of its culture, bringing together Babylonian, Persian and Hebrew elements and transmitting them to Christianity, and with Christianity to the West. From the West, at a later date, the Arameans [sc. Syriac-Orthodox & ‘Nestorians’] were to bring to the East Greek culture, especially philosophy, which became known to the Arabs through the medium of Aramaic.”(4)

1. http://www.adiyamanmetropolitligi.org/default.asp

2. http://www.suryaniler.com/suryani-tarihi.asp?id=31

3. T. Nöldeke, “Die Namen der aramäischen Nation und Sprache,” in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 25 (1871), p. 131: “Von den Namen dieser Nation und ihrer Sprache ist im Grunde der ursprüngliche ‘aramäisch’ auch der einzige, der noch für den Gebrauch der heutigen Wissenschaft streng passt.” English translation: “Regarding the name of this nation and its language is the original ‘Aramean’ in essence also the only one [sic], that for the employment of the present-day scholarship as yet strongly fits.”

4 S. Moscati, Ancient Semitic Civilizations (New York, 1957), p. 179.

Yamansert (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌, obviously tendentious and based on poor sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Google Search Results - Why should we rely on them?
this is an example of why users such as get frustrated.....

This is comment by a user complaining about edit warring to about this topic in 2009, displaying google search results: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=283985387 So why the imbalance now? What has changed since 2009?...the answer= Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the cause of the google search results. Look at the contribution logs for these 2, all they have contributed to Wikipedia for the past 6 years is the removal of any appellation and replacing it with Assyrian. @Penguins53 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/penguins53&offset=20140828233655&limit=500&target=Penguins53 @Shmayo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/shmayo&offset=20100423180320&limit=500&target=Shmayo

Sr 76 (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Why have you pinged me for that? What's it got to do with me? And by the way, can you learn how to format your comments properly. You are putting endless white space into this page and making it unnavigable and unreadable. Stop putting  everwhere in your posts. DeCausa (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Why am I getting brought up here? The appellation replacement has been to reduce confusion, repetition, and content forks. Penguins53 (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Penguins53


 * @Penguins53 The opposite is the case, where the appellation replacement was used to create a distorted view of reality and in many cases it wasn't even necessary or doesn't make any sense, that's the fact. Do you want to see some an examples? Why did you replace "Aramaeans" with "Assyrian" (linked to the biased propaganda article "Assyrian people") as an ethniciy for Western Neo-Aramaic speaker of Ma'loula, Bakh'a and Jubb'adin, when the inhabitants are Arameans or share an Aramaic identity? User Ordo de Essentia added, without bad intentions or trying to spread Assyrian propaganda on Wiki, Information about the ancient Assyrians to the "Assyrian people" article, because he thought this article is about them. You don't call this confusion?

--Suryoyo124 (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.rahim.eu/maaloula/aboutus.html
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Neo-Aramaic&oldid=625179110
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_people&oldid=659384877

I have moved on from those days, but thanks for digging up almost a year-old edit. Penguins53 (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

Removal of Severus of Antioch
What is the connection of Severus of Antioch with the Assyrian People page? Sr 76 (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a connection ..but its not a big one at all....Fact is many at the time in the church  thought St. Severus of Antioch to be an evil men. Not a subject that needs mention in this article (let alone an image of the person)...thus I agree -- Moxy (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of transcription and footnote?
, you made these edits "as per the talk page", but I can't quickly see discussions here on the talkpage that are related to these removals in any obvious way. Can you please clarify what talkpage discussion you were referring to? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What's your reasons to remove ܣܘܪܝܝܐ from the page ?&#39;AynHaylo (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah....why am i not surprised?

I removed the reference because we discussed it in section under Ref 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Ref_of_previous_source_clean_discussion_for_the_page

Now, Can you now explain how you missed the 21 modern sources using the name Syriac? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr 76 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@AynHaylo, when you construct a sentence like this: "The Assyrians, also known as......" it suggests that the word inside the brackets is the Syriac translation for the English word preceding it. The Syriac translation for the word Assyrian is not "ܣܘܪܝܝܐ" it is "ܐܫܘܪܝܐ" Or in it's gentilic form it is "ܐܬܘܪܝܐ. this was discussed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Bilingual_Dictionary_Definitions_of_the_words_Syriac_and_Assyrian Sr 76 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) First, keep the topics separate. This thread is not about the move debate but about why you removed that material. Second, it would certainly be more helpful if you just said straight out what your reason was, rather than keeping us guessing on the basis to a link to an old talkpage section that nobody else commented on, which in turn links to some other talkpage section of months ago. So, back in February, you included the reference used in fn.1 ("Nicholas Awde, Nineb Limassu, Nicholas Al-Jeloo, Modern Aramaic Dictionary & Phrasebook: (Assyrian/Syriac) (2007), ISBN 978-0-7818-1087-6, p. 4") in a list of refs that you thought ought to be removed because they were "written by modern-Assyrians". The subsequent thread clearly showed that you did in fact not have consensus for a blanket removal, that "being written by modern Assyrians" is in itself obviously no reason for declaring a source unreliable, and that the reliability of each source for the statements sourced to it needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, the only other person who commented specifically on this source said that it was "authoritative in linguistic matters". So, could you please now specify why exactly it would be unsuitable for supporting the idea that "all of ā, ō and word-final ē [in the various transcriptions of Suroye] transliterate Aramaic Ālaph"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And if I see any more of this kind of revert-warring on this page, I'll hand out blocks starting from two months in duration. Final warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sūrāyē / Sūryāyē / Āṯūrāyē also transliterated Sūrōyē / Sūryōyē / Ōṯūrōyē; all of ā, ō and word-final ē
 * The transliteration for the word Assyrian, it does not take the form:
 * group = Assyrian people
 * For the same reason I gave @AynHaylo above. That is the party driven POV, hence the removal of the Awde,Limassu,Al-Jeloo reference. Latn|ā, Latn|ō and Latn|ē are inconsequential to the issue.
 * Sr 76 (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one that posted on the talk page as instructed in the rules. I'm the one that's here discussing this issue. I'm not the one edit-warring. Sr 76 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't remove it like that. You can simply add brief explanations or a link to another page. ܣܘܪܝܝܐ is the historical name of our people before any nationalism. Other people have their name in their language so we should also have our.&#39;AynHaylo (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur. You cannot simply remove the word that our people have called themselves for two thousand years Penguins53 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Penguins53
 * Pro tip: if the relationship between the native name ("ܣܘܪܝܝܐ" or whatever else) and the English title at the start of the lede sentence is not a totally straightforward one, e.g. because the one isn't a straightforward direct translation of the other, the obvious solution is to take that bit out of the lede sentence and integrate it somewhere else, together with the discussion of other name variants. Always remember: (a) we make decisions about including or not including things in order to maximize the information value for our readers, not in order to satisfy the feelings of the subject group – it's not about "us" "having" "our" name there; (b) for 99.9% of our readers the information value of that string is precisely zero, because they can't read the Syriac script anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@AynHaylo and @Penguins53 the 2 of you did not complain when the word "ܣܘܪܝܝܐ" was misrepresent as Assyrian, see the original explanation I gave @AynHaylo. Because this misrepresentation fits the narrative of Assyrian propaganda.

see what i mean when i wrote it will reduce the conflicts and edit-warring in the move request: "None of these groups can deny their Syriac identity, if they did they would need to forgo 2000 years of heritage"... "Weather synonymity of the word Syriac is with Aramean or the word Syriac is Synonymous with Assyrian, with my proposal either answer becomes irrelevant".... "By doing this Wiki-Admin can easily identify ideological and political POVs being inserted into Wikipedia pages." But your abuse of the "commonname" took priority over common sense. Sr 76 (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Explaining this change today.... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_people&type=revision&diff=673444709&oldid=673444328 because the original change was made incorrectly and not inline with the discussion above.

"ܐܫܘܪܝܐ" replaced "ܐܬܘܪܝܐ"

The gentilic form of the word Assyrian "ܐܬܘܪܝܐ" othuroyo is found mainly in Syriac literature, up until the 20th century. as opposed to the word "ܐܫܘܪܝܐ" that literal translation of the word Assyrian. The word othuroyo was originally used to refer to the Syriacs from the Mosul region of today's Iraq. Sr 76 (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That is not yet an explanation of why you consider the form "ܐܫܘܪܝܐ" to be more appropriate here. Could you please provide a Latin transliteration of this form ("Oshuroyo"?), and links to reliable sources describing it as the common self-appellation? I've seen a couple of reliable sources that appear to be giving the "ܐܬܘܪܝܐ" form (i.e. forms with "th" in Latin transcription), but none of the ones I've seen appear to be giving a variant with "sh". – Also, please do be prepared to explain your removal of those sections from the history section . Why did you keep the "pre-Christian" and the "from Safavid to Ottoman" sections in, but removed all those in between? It's not at all obvious to me how that follows from anything "as per talk page". Just as the last time you explained some article edit only with a vague hand-waving of "as per talk page", you really need to learn to be more explicit about telling people what you're doing and why. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @Fut.Perf yes, its Oshuroyo some times Ashuroyo is used, we can stick with Oshuroyo. The gentilic form of Assyrian was used during the for centuries through out Syriac literature to refer to the Syriacs from Mosul and it surrounds, up until the 20th century. Then the word took on a different connotation with advent of Assyrian nationalism. Especially within the Syriac Orthodox Church the word was use by Assyrian Nationalist as only a direct synonym of Assyrian. So in the pre 20th century era the word did not mean Assyrian, hence the need to change it. During the 20th century it took on a purely political definition, most devoid of its original meaning.


 * So far as the history section goes we have been discussing it below in the "Clean up of the History Section". And i agree with other parts should be removed also. Sr 76 (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This doesn't answer my question. You have explained why you think the meaning of the word changed since the 19th/20th century, but you haven't explained why you think the new meaning has to correspond with this different form (with sh rather than th). Sources or it didn't happen. (Also, incidentally, I'm not sure why you keep throwing the term "gentilic" around – do you feel it signifies something about the th form that doesn't apply to the sh form? Please explain.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW didn't @Penguins53 just violate the rules for the page? by reverting my edits without explaining it on the talk page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_people&action=history Sr 76 (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Assyrian Christians, Aaron Michael Butts - Yale University, page 2

"While ʾāthorāyā “Assyrian” is not the typical self%designation for Syriac Christians in pre%modern Syriac sources, Assyria (ʾāthor) and Assyrian (ʾāthorāyā) do occur in several senses throughout this period. First and foremost, ʾāthor refers to the ancient empire of Assyria and the area surrounding its last capital Nineveh. In the Syriac translation of the Hebrew Bible, for instance, Hebrew ʾaššur is often rendered by Syriac ʾāthor (Kings 15:19, 20, 29; 17:6, 23; 18:11; etc.). Following this usage, the gentilic adjective ʾāthorāyā designated a person from the ancient empire of Assyria or more specifically its capital Nineveh. From this primary sense of ʾāthor, at least two secondary senses developed in pre%modern Syriac literature. First, Syriac ʾāthor came to refer to the city of Mosul (Fiey 1965%1986: 2.570), which was built on the west bank of the Tigris directly across from the ancient ruins of Nineveh. This is the primary meaning of ʾāthor relayed by the native Syriac lexicographers Ishoʿ bar ʿAli (ninth century; Hoffmann 1874: 63) and Ḥasan bar Bahlul (mid%tenth century; Duval 1888%1901: 1.322). This meaning of ʾāthor is also found in the Arabic geographer Yāqūt (d. 1228) who states that Mosul was called ʾathūru before it was called al�mawṣil (Wüstenfeld 1866%1873: 1.119.16%19).

With ʾāthor referring to the city of Mosul, the gentilic adjective ʾāthorāyā was, then, used as a designation for one from the city of Mosul. It is probably in this sense that the Syriac Orthodox patriarch and historian Michael the Great (d. 1199) called ʿImād al%Dīn Zangī (ca. 1085%1146), who was the atabeg of Mosul, an “Assyrian (ʾāthorāyā) pig” in his Chronicle (Chabot 1899%1910: 3.261 [French translation]; 4.630.2.24 [Syriac text]). This meaning continued to be used in Classical Syriac at least until the turn of the 20th century (see Fiey 1965: 156 with n. 53; Heinrichs 1993: 105)."Sr 76 (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

i'll be going back to my edits before @Penguins53 reverted them.Sr 76 (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thumbnail Clean-up
Removal of the following individuals from the thumbnail window. Abgar V, Lucian, Bardaisan, Ephrem the Syrian, Simon the Stylite, Bukhtishu, Hunayn bar Ishaq, Shimun VIII Yohannan Sulaqa

Since these people don't belong to the modern era, it is more appropriate if they were listed under Syriac Christianity not Assyrian People.Sr 76 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Clean up of the History Section
The "History" section contains the following subcategories. - Arab conquest - Mongolian and Turkic rule

Since this page is about the modern Assyrians then this topic is covered in this section is not only outside the scope of the page, but is covered in other pages anyway. I suggest the removal of these two subcategoriesSr 76 (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I oppose such removal. The sections listed provide a glimpse of a people gradually becoming a minority in their homeland the catalysts behind it, with Arab and Turkic conquests being two such reasons. Penguins53 (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

This page is for the modern Assyrians, the disambiguation of related articles requires a consistency of the pages across Wikipedia. By keeping these sections here, the page does not conform to this. Sr 76 (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your argument rests upon the false assumption that modern Assyrians and those who lived at the time of these events are separate and unrelated. Mugsalot (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @Mugsalot, not even close. Did you even read what i wrote before disagreeing with me? Sr 76 (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @Sr 76, firstly, I would suggest a more hospitable approach to discussions regarding content. More importantly, you continue to assert your POV in separating modern and historic Assyrians. Regarding your point that this information is elsewhere, in other articles,the history of an ethnic group is included in its article, and links to further information are made available. Mugsalot (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, I am not mentioning my POV, I am discussing the page structure against the other related pages. If I was discussing the separation of the ancient Assyrians from the modern Assyrians, then trust me, you will know it.


 * If this page is a representation of the modern Assyrians, and the Assyrian Empire pages refer to the Ancient Assyrians. Then it needs to be consistent with the Arameans page. There is no need a history section that predates the modern era, since the page is about the modern era.Sr 76 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Arameans? I see history here..be it poorly sourced. Most "peoples" type pages have a historical section. Could you be a bit more clear at what point in history you believe this article should start at and why? -- Moxy (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If Assyrian continuity is to be believed then the Assyrian people article should cover the ancient period also. Mugsalot (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that some of you stick on the term "Assyrian", where is the distinction between ancient Assyrians and modern Assyrians? I type Assyrians into the search bar and I still getting redirected to this article. No Assyrians (disambiguation) page available until now, when I want to read about the ancient, pre-Christian people?--Suryoyo124 (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mugsalot it seems that you want to have your cake and eat it too.

@Moxy not that this was original intention with the suggestion....but.....most people pages are not forced together, based on the bogus notion of a content fork, to enable the Assyrian political ambition assimilating other groups. How can you sustain a history section beyond the modern era, when no historical sources refer to the Assyrians? Are you going to go out of your way to misrepresent the sources? that hardly seems reasonable nor ethical. I kept telling you guys, WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable. "Bill Clinton" for "William Clinton" makes sense, "Assyrian people" for "Syriac people" doesn't make any sense. Any attempt to construct this history will be a political POV.

My original suggestion was that we are having trouble containing the scope of the page, already a history section will only conflate this. The Aramean Syriacs were not limited to just Mesopotamia, the Assyrians and Chaldeans were. But the Aramean Syriacs were grouped under the name Assyrian on a page that is constructed to reflect just Mesopotamia, it even says it on the first line. Before any one comes up with the bright idea expanding this page to outside Mesopotamia, that wont work because you have very large groups of Syriac background such as the Maronites that have nothing to do with Assyria.Sr 76 (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Maronites are Maronites and they have their own page, they are not Syriac, not even 1% or 5% of Maronites identify with the name "Suryani". The majority of them are maintream Lebanese/Arabs, I will not even talk about their diaspora... They don't know Syriac, most of them see it as "Latin" a dead language. Today Lebanon parliament clearly show it, they have their own seat, for Maronites, etc. It's the same with the people of Maa'loula (the last remnants of true "ܡܠܟܝܐ"/Melkites), they have no connection with us, they don't even know our people, they just know their language is closed to Palestinian Aramaic. I will not even talk about other Greek Orthodox/Catholic: "Rum" who are completely arabized. Stop spreading false propaganda about people "west of Euphrates" or with "Syriac Background" (Let's include the Jews and the Mhalmoye now ? at least they still speak our language them...), or the Maronites and Greek Orthodox of Israel who decided (with the effort of WCA and Suryoye from Diaspora who are Aramean nationalists) to take up the name Aramean to not be assimilated with the Arabs.

"you have very large groups of Syriac background such as the Maronites" what a joke, if thats was really the case, Lebanon would be full of Syriac Aramean nationalist flag (just like the few villages of Maronites in Israel who adopted the name Aramean), Syriac Union Party, ESU and so on.

Making this page "Syriac" or "Aramean" or other pages will just be forks... The solution is to rename it to Syriac-Assyrian and include a nationalim section, that's all. Sr_76, if you want to work from a strictly academic point of view, then work on the page Syriac Christianity which of course include maronites and to an extent melkites. In some of your posts you claimed that Chaldeans, Syriac and Assyrian sects are different peoples (Not even coherent with what Arameans nationalists say), then now you try to include them under the name Syriac with your arabized people "west of Euphrate". And it's the same with Suryoyo124. So again, this page is for our people:

U.S.-led coalition disappointed us in anti-IS battles: Assyrian commander, We welcome the statement of US Gen. John Allen on Self-Government in Syria, Syriac-Assyrians welcome US statement on self-government and self-defence, ISIS Onslaught Engulfs Assyrian Christians as Militants Destroy Ancient Art, Three Assyrian fighters killed during clashes with ISIS, isis-hundreds-of-assyrian-christian-hostages-in-syria, ASSYRIAN CHRISTIANS DEMAND ARMS, SUPPORT TO FIGHT ISIS AS HUNDREDS KIDNAPPED, Fight Against ISIS In Syrian Province Crosses Religious And Ethnic Lines,Fight Against ISIS In Syrian Province Crosses Religious And Ethnic Lines,On the front line in Syrian Kurdistan, militias fight to free kidnapped families,Meet the militia fighting ISIL’s “dictatorship and inhumanity” in Syria,Is This the End of Christianity in the Middle East?.

&#39;AynHaylo (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Us" and "Our people"???? POV and nothing else. Wikipedia is not here as a platform for your political aspirations, dont bring that here, there are plenty of places on the internet for that.Sr 76 (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the issue is a content fork, then this may work: A main page called "Syriac people". that lists all the heritage and history of these people. Then linked from this main page. a "Assyrian people" for nationalists and a "Aramean people" page for nationalist. "Chaldean people" With these three sub pages will be restricted from providing any historical information beyond the modern era.

Your solution of "Syriac-Assyrian people", wont work because it gives priority to the name Assyrian over Aramean and Chaldean. So it will be a cause of offence and disruptions. Sr 76 (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The current page is fine as is, but should give a bit more explanation of "Chaldean" and "Aramean" nationalisms. Penguins53 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Penguins53

Again Where are your Maronites and Melkites ? These are arabized people for 99% of them, not even counting those among them who consider themselves as Asian Greek ("Rum" which is still used by the way), those who advocate phoenicianism... REgarding my proposition, it will be a cause of offense only if you're POV on Assyrianism, Arameanism or Chaldeanism. Before saying someone is POV or has political aspirations, check what you said and did on Wikipedia: From sayings Assyrian, Chaldeans and Arameans are different people, claiming 3 diffenrents pages, you are now trying to include them under "Syriac people" but in other hand you are proposing separate pages for each nationalism still hiding yourself and trying to divide our people ? By the way I made similar proposition but you were again against only because the name "Assyrian-Syriac people" "gives primacy to the name Assyrian over Aramean and Chaldean" of course because English media in English speaking countries use Assyrian and then Syriac. You only know us from academics books. You have clearly no internal knowledge of our people, our political history and movements and again your position is also at the opposite of all our political movement (WCA leading Aramean nationalist organization) and church leaders (recent words of Syriac Orthodox Patriarch (interviewed by SuroyoTV, AssyriaTV and SuryoyoSat), Mar Louis Sako Chaldean Catholic Patriarch (regarding our name in the Iraqi KRG and Bishop Mar Awa royel in his letter adressed to Chaldean Catholic Church regarding unity of the Church of the East), to conclude it's against the people concerned by this page.&#39;AynHaylo (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the logic of Maronite and Melkite heritage escapes you. Then try this: Why do ignore the Arameans and Chaldeans self determination, and insist on labeling them Assyrian? When refuting the Maronites your argument relies on what they call themselves, when pursuing your political aspirations of Assyriamism you must ignore what the Arameans and Chaldeans call themselves. Its an example of the redicouluse double standard the Assyrians fanatics have used to ruin this page.

BTW I have seen that interview before: The final answer given by Syriac Orthodox Patriarch is that he insists the people are Syriac and is willing to call them Arameans. The label Assyrian was not given as an option.Sr 76 (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Its clear this is deviating from the original suggestion, please lets try and keep the talk limited to the history section.Sr 76 (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"Why do ignore the Arameans and Chaldeans self determination" ==> You clearly show yourself and this does confirm, you are clearly POV, your only agenda is to divide our people, making 3 separate pages because this is what you believe and convinced of. But the links and videos that I provided in my previous posts clearly show you that the organisations of our people, none of them, state that we are different people and no church also is dividing this people => Your "Self determination" of Arameans or Chaldeans are just the beliefs and views of few individuals like you, even academics do not state that (check your sources). Same thing for the interview of Moran Mor Aphrem II, you only retained what was matching your POV. In the interview they used the name "parties/ܓܒ̈ܐ", insisted on unity and using the name Suryoyo in the Church etc... Again, your proposition fit only your POV and not the people.&#39;AynHaylo (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "...your only agenda is to divide our people..." Sr 76 does not divide our people. You and the other Assyrian nationalists are dividing our people particularly within the Syriac-Orthodox community by forcing your Assyrian ideology upon all of them. What do mean by saying "our people"? First of, there has never been something like a unification in the sense of nationalism among Syriac Christian. The separations are much deeper in history and didn't start with the name/ethnicity conflict. The only thing they all cared about for centuries was their Christian faith, before the rise of various nationalist groups and ideologies. You gave the example with the Israeli Aramean Maronites, but you forgot to mention that this is exactly the same case when some Suryoye from the Syriac-Orthodox Church joined Assyrian nationalism. I don't know from where your family came from, my family and the others from Syria have always referred Assyrians (Assyrian Church of the East members) and Chaldeans (Chaldean Catholic Church members) as different people with their own language and tradtion. The first time they meet Assyrians and Chaldeans was in the diaspora. What is our or your language: Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Chaldean Neo-Aramaic or Turoyo? Your are talking about "our people" and ironically they can't converse with each other in their Eastern Aramaic languages/dialects, which would be like speaking Spanish with an Italian or Dutch with a German. Seriously, you're still trying to make your nation different from other Syriac Christians in the Middle East? "...state that we are different people and no church also is dividing this people..." The Syriac-Orthdox Church always tries to keep politics and nationalism (even Aramean nationalism which is rooted in the tradition and heritage of the Syriac-Orthdox Church) away from the church since the church is a place of faith unlike the "Christians" at the Assyrian Church of the East, who mix nationalism with faith (See:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3Q8nK0vAxk). From the perspective of Aramean organisations Assyrian nationalists are dividing our people and prevent a unification among Syriac-Orthodox Christians, Maronites, Melkites etc.. "...making 3 separate pages because this is what you believe and convinced of...insisted on unity and using the name Suryoyo in the Church etc..." If Suryoyo is the name that unites all of us, why would you oppose a common Syriac people article for our Christian heritage, while the other three separate pages refer to the nationalist groups!?--Suryoyo124 (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

And here we go again, everybody exchanging the same tired old ideological points about what each of you think the identity of your people should or shouldn't be. '''Dammit, will you people never learn? Stop this, now, all of you.''' This is my absolutely last and final warning to all three of you, Suryoyo124, 'AynHaylo, and Sr 76. Stop debating your opinions, and start developing the article. The next time I see people dragging each other into these kinds of ideological debates, it's indef-blocks for all of you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * But our hands are tied. So you tell us. There is now a period of about 2000 years that no-one can find any sources for.......how do we start developing the article? Sr 76 (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thousands of books on the topic, Your simply not stating your point clearly or the rest of us dont understand your POV, What time period would you like sources for ? Not sure blanking sections over adding sourced content will help anyone reading the article understand any POV. -- Moxy (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @Moxy I'm not sure what you mean by this, we are getting our wires crossed somewhere. Are you suggesting that there are thousands of works that refer to Assyrian history during the last 2000 years; prior to just the modern period?Sr 76 (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Shmayo we have discussed this at length, stop edit warring. Read the rules of this page, there is no need for consensus on the content since the page is poorly referenced. If you want the section there then please provide sources.

you have blocked several users at the drop of hat, and yet you allow @shmayo to continue uninterrupted with his edit warring.Sr 76 (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Identity Section
As per the talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14#Origin.27s_of_today.27s_Assyrian_Identity

Sr 76 (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Article title
Now, where most of you want to keep the term "Assyrian" for all modern Aramaic speaking-peoples, we would still need a proper distinction between ancient Assyrians and the modern Aramaic speaking-peoples who are all labeled as Assyrians in order to prevent misunderstanding and Assyrian POV editing. The Assyria article refers to the empire originally, not the ancient peoples themselves. My suggestions: Assyrians (Aramaic speaking-peoples), Assyrians (Syriacs) or Assyrians (Syriac-Christians) for Aramaic speaking-peoples. "Assyrian" is already a disambiguation page. The current title "Assyrian people" should be the title for the ancient people article, while "Assyrians" simply redirects to the "Assyrian" disambiguation page.--Suryoyo124 (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * They are not interested in improving the article, the article currently meets their political needs. Sr 76 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Article
Is this article only about Assyrians or is it also about Arameans and Chaldeans? It's paradox: On the one hand, there is a confrontation in the Syriac community (Suryoye) about the name of the people - and the article mentions that. But on the other hand, the article plays with supposedly facts by naming the Syriac people Assyrians. That's not objective. It shows, that one group dominates this article. Please change it. If you wish an article, which is only about Assyrians, it is okay. But you can't subsume then all of the Syriac people. --E.Mailbox (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)