Talk:Syriac

message: I redirected Syrian and Syrians to Syriacs and stopped Syriacs from redierecting to Assyrian people. This has been agreed upon on the Assyrian people talk page.King Legit 15:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's new? 

message: The term Syriac is mostly used by Syriac Orthodox and Catholic members. A minority within this Syriac community call themselves Aramaean. Benne, the way you try to present it is as if all Syriac Orthodox/catholic are "Aramaeans", which is wishful thinking. What I suggest doing is creating another page besides this one, something like The ethnicity of Syriac Orthodox Church, where it talks about how some within the church call themselvese Assyrian, Syriac, or "Aramean".  Chaldean 00:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Khoikhoi for taking care of it. Chaldean 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Arameans"

message: Syrians are people of modern Syria(سوريون) while Syriacs as far as I know are the people who speak Syriac language or follow the Syriac church (السريان); this page make you confused about Modern people of Syria and Syriac speakers  especially  when you Wrote 'Syriacs or Syrians may refer to:'; I think it is better if you delete the word Syrians --Aziz1005 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Syriac back then was Syrian. Any old reference to one being Syrian was most likely a Syriac speaker, if I'm not mistaken. Chaldean 03:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Historically, the word 'Syrian' in all sorts of languages has been used to describe just about the entirety of the Middle East. Of course, its limitation to refer to an inhabitant of the modern state of Syria is only as old as the country. Before that time, it could refer to what is now Lebanon, southeast Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Palestine as well as modern Syria, and sometimes Palestine and Mesopotamia were considered separate from Syria. All in all, these were rough geographical labels and not much more than that. Aramaic speakers who became Christian quickly adopted the Greek word 'Συριακος' for themselves and their language to define them against non-Christian Aramaic speakers. Thus, the word took on a rather specific meaning for Christian Aramaic speakers. In the past, the English word 'Syrian' has been used as a general adjective for all of these meanings, while 'Syriac' usually only refered to the language. However, in recent times, the English word 'Syriac' has taken on a broader meaning to cover people and things associated with the language. However, in many languages, including Syriac itself, one word stands in for all meanings. — Gareth Hughes 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gareth, please give your thoughts on Benne's edits on this subject as well. Chaldean 19:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this down to the nonsense of names again. Yes, there is a group of people who choose to refer to just about every person who did, does or is related to someone who does speak Syriac as an Aramaean. The problem is that there is another group of people who use the name Assyrian in a similar way. So, I would say that, if you have Assyrian there, you have Aramaean there too. There is historical record of some early Syriac-speaking figures being called Aramaean, of whom Bardaisan is foremost. The name Aramaean quickly lost favour to being called Syrian/Syriac. There are records of some early Syriac-speaking figures being called Assyrian, of whom Tatian is foremost. However, that name always appears to denote a geographical origin rather than anything more. It's all very messy and unhelpful when the modern battlelines of ethnicity arguments are drawn into the past. And all I can say for the present is that there are groups around who apply one name or other to just about everyone whithout any decent evidence for it. On the whole, including both is probably better than excluding both, and there's no real reason to leave just one — leaving one would be biased. — Gareth Hughes 23:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gareth, the reason why Assyrian is listed instead of "Members of Church of the East" is because ALL Assyrian Church of the East consider themselves Assyrian. But you can't say that about Syriac Ortho/Catho. That is why it makes more sense to list that line of group as "Members of the Syriac Orthodox Church or Syriac Catholic Church " - as it is already listed. Because all of those who claim to be "Araamean" today are of Syriac Ortho/Catho church members. But you can't say the same the other way around (that all Syriac O/C consider themselves Aramean. Chaldean 00:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I thought the issue was about the inclusion of 'Aramaean', because I have no argument with what you are saying. — Gareth Hughes 00:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the people who call themselves Aramaeans are not only to be found in the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic Churches. — Yeah? Where else do you find them? There is no Syriac church of any creed that has a complete set of members who consider themselves Aramaean. "Assyrian" is the ethnic designation used by all members of the Church of the East. Assyrian is also used by MANY members from the Chaldean Catholic Church. Assyrian is also used by MANY members from the Syriac Orthodox AND Syriac Catholic Church(es). Face it, pseudo-Aramaeans are outnumbered. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syrians * Syriacs 

message: * The Melkites, now this group are Mainly ethnic Arabs and Arabists, so just because Syriac is used in Church that don't make them Assyrian! Otherwise the Indonesians will be considered Arabs because they read Arabic in the mosque!. However, since they are Lebanese you can't rule out that some identify with modern main stream Neo-Phoenician movement in Lebanon.
**I am not against mentionning them as Syriacs. However, please clearify where that all of them are claiming Assyrian identity if you want to remove the Arab and Phoenician identity!--Skatewalk 02:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When someone reads it he will think all are Assyrians--Skatewalk 02:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Melkites

message: OK Elias I get it (about the Arameans), but please explain this to me?
* What does the Arab Melkites have to do with Assyrians!?
* Take a look at the Maronites Patriachs list:(keep in mind those are only the well known Arabs and Franks among the Patriachs), Today modern Lebanese especially the Maronites use the Phoenician identification more than anything else. However, Arab and Frankish identities are strong among the Maronites.
The Patriachs below account for more than 70% of the Maronites Patriachs in the last 400 years. All are well known ethnic Arabs. The Crusader period had a Frankish influence that I can't verify but atleast the first Douaihy was a Crusader, then he married from the Makhlouf Arabs. 3 more Patriachs will come from that lineage.    
*Arab Maronite Patriachs:
:Ghassanid Arabs Qahtan
:Mikhael Rizzi  (1567-1581) 
:Sarkis Rizzi   (1581-1596) 
:Yosef Rizzi   (1596-1608) 
:Youssef Tayyan (1796-1809)
:Tobiah Al-Khazen (1756-1766)
:Yohanna Helu (1809-1832)
:Joseph Al-Khazen (1845–1854) 
:Nasrallah Sfeir (1986-current)
*Mashrouki Arabs Qahtan
:Youssef al Sem'ani (1687-1768)
:Yaqoub Awwad (r 1705-1733)
:Sem'an Aawwad (r 1743-1756)
:Boulos Massead (1854-1890)
*Ghaythi Arabs Qahtan
:Antoine Arida (1931-1955)
:Boulos Meouchi (1955-1975)
*Other Etnic Arab Patriachs
:Youssef Hobeish (1823-1845) From Qais 'Ailan
:Antoine Khoreysh (1975-1986) From Bani Hilal
*Frankish Patriachs A Crusader from Douai, France
:Jeremiah El Douaihy (1199-1230)
*Mixed Frankish/Ghassanids Douaihy/Makhlouf
:Yohanna Maklouf El Douaihy (1608-1633)
:George Omaira El Douaihy (1633-1644)
:Stephen El Douaihy (1670-1704)--Skatewalk 20:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maronite Arabs and Franks

message: Syriacs are recognized as a ethnic group in the whole world in countrys as sweden, netherlands, turkey, syria, lebanon (arameans) etc. only in sweden there are 80 000 SYRIACS. the Syriac national association in sweden got 20 000 members against the assyrian national association in swedens 8 000 members. i am syriac, and im under a another flag, the syriac flag that is way different from the assyrian flag. i have another history ( the aramean history) when you have your own "assyrian" history. there are millions of people worldwide calling them self SYRIACS (suryoye oromoye) that is differnet from ASsyrians (Suryoye othoroye). there is a syriac channel called SURYOYO SAT, and its logo is the Syriac/aramaic flag. there is the Syriac/aramaic universal alliance and their logo is the syriac/aramaic flag. the syriac/aramaic party in lebanon is called aramaic democratic organisatoin and its party logo is the syriac/aramaic flag. and the syriac people in lebanon call them selfs for syriac/arameans. it is only you CHALDEAN and ELIASALUCARD that thinks that the syriacs are "assyrians". i can put up 600 sources and references that shows that we, the syriacs, are a ethic group and descendants to the ARAMAEANS, not the "assyrians". 85.226.122.174 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly noted. Syriac means Assyriac and the ethnic group is Assyrian. Please read WP:NPOV. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 19:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Syriacs are recognized as a ethnic group in the whole world in countrys as sweden, netherlands, turkey, syria, lebanon (arameans) - prove it, bring sources. Until then, stop editing. Chaldean (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Syriacs are Assyrians. We Assyrians are Syriacs. You are not an ethnic group. The ethnic group is Assyrian and it is extensively explained in the Assyrian naming dispute article. Please don't try to push any false political and religious agenda here that states "Syriacs are Aramaeans". — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and by the way, it's called an ethnic group. Hope that helps. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has pages that describe contreversial issues, such has Macedonia (region), Spygate, to name a few. That is what the Assyrian naming despute page is. Breaking down the issue. I do think the page should be moved to Syriac naming despute. Now if the page looks like to you as article is created to show that Syriacs (Arameans) are really Assyrians, then so be it. Chaldean (talk)
If you havent read what we were discussing, dont bother answering then. The TriZ (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If you can't contribute through page edits or even discussions, then just don't do anything at all. Chaldean (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: How did I change the subject? I replied to the question you had. Chaldean (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I did not create the article, Assyrian naming dispute. User:Dbachmann did. If you think the article gives incontrovertible proof that Syriac-speaking Christians, happen to be in actual fact, Assyrians, then perhaps you should try to accept the indisputable fact that you are an Assyrian. It's really not my fault that the Assyrians conquered the Aramaeans, spread them all over Mesopotamia, and forced them to worship Assur. Chances are that if the Aramaeans had an empire stretching all over the Middle East, maybe we would have called ourselves Aramaye today. But we call ourselves Suraye, and we all know what that means, so stop pretending to be an Aramaean and just get over it, that you are an Assyrian. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syriacs are a ethnic group, they are not assyrians 

message: Maronites are not "Roman Catholic" nor are they "Uniate."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.113.99 (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maronites