Talk:Syriacs/Archive 1

message: This is getting all a bit too messy! As this is an English-language encyclopedia, I've changed Suryoyo to a redirect to Syriacs. For the time being, here are the contents of that page:Suryoyo (ܣܘܪܝܝܐ) means Syriac, the language, and Syriac, the identity). It is derived from the Greek name for Aram, and based on the name for Assyria. The plural form is Suryoye (Syriacs). Modern Suryoye are traditionally Christian. Suryoye identify themselves as Assyrians and Arameans.
The Syriac Orthodox Church use the term Suryoyo offically.
Other forms of Suryoyo are Suryaya, Suroyo and Suraya.
I'll try and work in some of this material somewhere. Gareth Hughes 13:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: I'm not sure that merging this article with Assyrian people (talk · [ history] · [ watch]) is such a good idea: there's a lot of political baggage attached to both terms. I tend to prefer Syriacs because it refers to those who have the Syriac language as their heritage. Assyrian is probably the more political term; it is associated with political nationalism. --Gareth Hughes 23:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I don't get it. Why are you reverting the page. I spruced it up to a much higher standard.
:Ask User:Benne. --Khoikhoi 19:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khoi Khoi 

message: I would like to work on the merging of the assyrians/arameans/chaldeans/maronites, I belive that they all should be under the umbrella name syriacs. The list of language, people, culture should be merged into one category syriacs. 
One example is the kingdoms of palmyra, edessa, petra, hatra, the mardaites (so called isaurians) all of these should be under the syriac name, due to the fact that syriacs are the name that is used throughout history about 2300 years. Eventhough some may say that the real name is syrian, it dont mind using the term syrians, but then we must alter the name of the current state to its original name in the wikipedia. And that is Arabs/arab and the current syrian state to be called arab-syrian. due to the fact that in the syrian legislation it is said that the country is the arab syrian republic.
Suryoyo 01:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge all syriacs 

message: Hi all
I want you all to see the progress that is made within the syriac community,
the link I give you is a letter from a Maronite who states that maronites are ethnically syriacs not arabs.
http://www.chaldeansonline.net/news/news0420.html
Suryoyo 23:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a blatant lie: the letter states very clearly that the purpose of letting people choose the "Syriac" ethnic identity in the U.S. census is that the "Lebanese" choice means being categorized as "Arab", which meant that "any federal monies which were available for educational and social services went to the ethnic Arab community at large". This has nothing to do with any "Syriac ethnic identity", this is just a fraud to "qualify for some financial assistance for our educational and social programs". Just as if you told people that if they wear a red hat in the street they get a chance to be selected for an all-inclusive 7 days trip to Hawaii... --Pylambert 15:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  maronites are syriacs! 

message: You are right, Assyrians and Chaldeans are Syriacs. That's why I placed Assyrian people, Chaldeans, and :Category:Chaldeans in :Category:Syriacs, instead of the other way round. ----Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation (reply to User:12.15.7.70) 

message: I added Template:ethno-stub to the article. Wouldn't it be nice to create a separate stub category for articles related to the Syriac people? ---Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubs related to Syriacs 

message: I have removed the links below from the article. They are in desparate need of a context, to make the connection to the article obvious. For now, I'll leave them here. ---Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: Assyria is our nation. Syriac Aramaic is our Language. Christianity is our Religion! These are the facts. Aram/Syria was never independant of Assyria, after the fall of Nineveh and eventually the fall of Babylon it was incorporated into Greco-Roman Empires. Even Phoenecia/Canaan eventually became an Assyrian colony. The inhabitants were deported to Nineveh and Babylon and merged into Assyrian culture. That is the fact.
---------------
kurds never have had a country, I would appreciate if you could change that benne, and for the idea of an future state is the syriac nation in beth nahrin
Michael 23:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our Future Nation 

message: For a few weeks some activists, including under the pretence of sociology, have ben busy replacing every ocurrence of "Assyrian(s)", by "Syriac(s)" and letting unaware people believe that "Syriacs" is the "neutral" common denomination for several religious communities and/or ethnic groups, varying from the Syriac orthodox and Catholic churches and the Assyrian/"Nestorian" and Chaldean churches to the same plus Maronites, and even Melkites. It should be stressed here that various Aramaic/Syriac languages and dialects were dominant in the "Fertile Crescent" till the Arab/Islamic conquest/invasion of the region, and even some centuries afterwards there were probably still spoken by many people (including some Maronites and other inhabitants of present-day Lebanon and West Syria up to the XVIIIth century). But it should equally be stressed that ethnic and national identities, particularly in the Post-Ottoman states, are not primarily based on the spoken (or past-spoken) languages, they're rather based on a mix with a predominance of religious ("sectarian") affiliation. The use of "Assyrian" as an ethnonational denomination for the only "Syriacs" (orthodox or catholic) and "Assyro-Chaldeans" (orthodox or catholic) is not so much an ideological choice as a convenience because all these groups usually refer to themselves with various local or religious ethnonyms, just as e.g. many small Serbian-Croatian-speaking ethnic groups in the Balkans, be they catholic, orthodox or muslim (Torbesh, Goranis, etc.). The use of "Syriacs" is however exclusively referring to the members of the Syriac orthodox (and maybe catholic) church, never to the whole array of ethnoreligious communities, whereas "Assyrians" is at least accepted by a lot of members of all these communities, even if not by all members nor by the clergy for instance. I think this disinformation campaign with extensive renaming, and including other ethnoreligious groups under the same "Syriacs" umbrella, should be stopped as soon as possible, it undermines the credibility of wikipedia. --Pylambert 16:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder who is making propaganda when on your user page you list yourself in the :Category:Supporters of Assyrian independence and "against a Kurdish state". I think people like you and other nationalists shouldn't be allowed to take part in a project like wikipedia: you only come here to insert propaganda and disinformation into articles about the Middle East, just like your Grey Wolves or Chetnik counterparts on articles about Turkey or the Balkans. Besides, I realize more and more than even some admins begin to be tired of intervening in disputes created by modifications from nationalists from one side or another. One last thing, my readings on these subjects are exclusively of a scientific nature, including some by Eden Naby, Joseph Yacoub, Benjamin Braude, Bernard Lewis, Laurent Chabry, Leonard Biegel, Robert Montagne, Pierre Rondot etc. etc. --Pylambert 20:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem of factual accuracy and of manipulation 

message: Sargon T. Y.
First of all Suryoyo/Michael. It's Beth Nahrain. Even in Syriac it's two words, why do you make it one in English. Your mispelling redirects to the correct form. Second of all why are you against Kurdish Indpendence? You think you're better than them? How do you support Assyrian Independence and also Beth Nahrain? Beth Nahrain is a region between the Tigris and the Euphrates, never was a country. No one's better than anyone. Why should we get a country and not the Kurds. First of all they outnumber us. Good luck aranging that. That is no way to win anyone's support. The only thing one can do is try to undo the injustices of the past and try to prevent them in the future. People like you are one of the reasons we have no nation. No Beth Nahrain, No Assyria, and No Aram. Syria has become Arabized to the point of no return as has Lebanon. You're such a propenent of Syriacism. Syriac means Assyrian, why don't you call yourself Aramean. That was "Aram." Aram was NEVER a country or empire. It was always a dominion of some great empire. It simply meant "Highland." It was another name for Assyria (Ashur). Yes the inhabitants may have originally been Aramean but they were Assyrianized just as most "Syriacs" have been Arabized. But everyone wanted to be Assyro-Babylonian. That was the New York/Rome/London of the Ancient World. Just as people become Americanized in America totally losing touch with their ancient herritage so did the ancient world. Nationality/Ethnicity/Religion is ultimately superficial. It can be changed at anytime. Fighting amongst these different names does no one any gain. We should simply unite as Indegenous Middle Eastern or Southwest Asian Christians so as to incorporate a wider demographic such as non semetic Christians like the Egyptians and Ethiopians. Power is in numbers.
-------
Dear friend, eventhough your amitions are high by in first hand giving your land to those who killed you forfathers and now proclaiming your land, and you say that it is for the sake of the independence of your own pepole. I dont see how, arabs have ruled the land now for about 70 (modern states), how much did you get from them, and how much do you think you will get from the kurds? have you now insight about the kurdish agenda? do you not see that when kurds dont allow assyrians to vote in the iraq elections, dont you see that as a voilation. yes it is you friend kurds who do this, do you think that they would even think about letting you have a independent state if they are neighburs with you. they couldnt be frendly neighburs when they didnt have a country. 
Actually im thinking of starting a new box that says against dangerous ideology like yours.
Michael 10:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed Nation 

message: There is --as far as I know-- no reliable evidence that the majority of the Suryoye/Suryaye call themselves "Assyrians", as was stated in a previous version. Provide with some evidence please! --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of Christians in Iraq are now Chaldeans. In the last election, all these Chaldean villages (95% of every village) voted for the party Assyrian Democratic Movement -  and  and We all know Iran's Chaldeans consider themself Assyrian. A big population of Assyrian orthodox in Syria. And that is pretty much the majority. What more do you want? What is your goal? Why are you trying to separate us from our history? 
Chaldean 01:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Micheal, wikipedia is not a place to try to unite your people. I suggest websites with forums to do that. In the end, you and I are ethnically Assyrian, no matter what we want to call ourself. Have a good day. Our people have always been Assyrian. Our nation has always been Assyrian. Its really a shame that some have forgotten this.  Chaldean 02:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you like your friends you have showed how radical you think, there is other ideologies than your assyrianism. please accept it... the people is united, your attempts here is not doing any good. I would suggest that we seperate syriacs from assyrians, until people like chaldean and plymbert arent active. because they have changed everything here to assyrian, as if they "assyrianism" is applyable for the whole group. Assyrians[mostly nestorians] or chaldeans[chatolics] arent the only group here. so please show some respect to other ideas.Michael 00:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "because they have changed everything here to assyrian" because it was the RIGHT thing to do. Wikipedia has gotten this topic horibly wrong, because of a couple people that began this project. It is ONE group, ONE ethnicity, with MULTIPLE names - kinda like the Greeks, where they are sometimes also called Romioi or even Hellenic Chaldean 03:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prove that majority calls themselves "Assyrians"! 

message: "revert: indigenous to whom? It does not mean 'Christian' in anything but a far from literal interpretation" 
Dont know if you know this, but the word for Christian in our langauge is Suraya Chaldean 02:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am Christian: am I Suraya? --Gareth Hughes 15:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, good point, but let me give you an example; I have sitting at a basketball game the other day, and I asked my mother, "awa tama suraya elee?" - Is that guy Christian. But of course what I meant was, was he one of our people - as in Assyrian. This is how this term is primery used; Christian of our people. So what I have should said is, suraya means Chrisitan of our area (middle east.) I dont know if I just confused you or not. But back home, we don't know of other Christians other then us. We never talked about Christians of Europe or America. If we ever did, yes, we would say Suraya for Christian. But since, we only know of our world, we use the term Suraya for Christian. I apologise if that wasnt clear :) Chaldean 00:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  And one more thing I wanted to say is that, honestly, we don't have another word for Christian in our language other then Suraya. If their is, I and every other Assyrian I knon that speaks the languages, has never used/heard of another word for it Chaldean 02:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garzo, it is true

message: Chaldean, I know you're going to get mad at me for this, but let me explain myself.
According to this article, the Syriacs includes the Arameans, Assyrians/Chaldeans AND the Maronites. Just redirecting this page into one of these groups would be inaccurate. I disagree with Benne going around changing all references to Assyrians with Syriacs, but I think that this article deserves to exist, despite what Pylambert says. --Khoikhoi 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, that this page should stay as its own, but I would like to have a small section in the Assyrian page, and also saying "for complete article of Syriacs, go here" kind of a thing Chaldean 03:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh and I just realized that you replied to me because of what I wrote about what does Suraya means. I didn't just wrote, hoping to merge this with Assyirans, but I was just trying to tell Garzo that what that guy with the IP wrote is true; as in the word of Christian in our langauge is Suraya. Chaldean 03:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Assyrian people now. What do you think? Should we remove Syriacs from the infobox on the right now? --Khoikhoi 03:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a hard choice, that I cannot make on my own. You bring up a good point.  Lets see what others say. Chaldean 03:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Oh and by the way, this is what I wrote 4 days ago in the Assyrian genocide page :} " And articles Syriacs, Chaldeans and even Assyro-Chaldeans could also be merged with Assyrian people." I agree with you on this, with the exception of the Syriac page Chaldean 04:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I personally would like to see Syriac be merged with Syriac Christianity - under either title, but would like to see Syriacs. Chaldean 04:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I don't get why Pylambert said that Benne made up the Syriacs term. I just don't see how that could be true. --Khoikhoi 04:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And by the way, the reason I said it was a hard choice, is because Suraya is a term used mostly by Chaldeans and Assyrians. Remember, Suraya is not that often used in Lebanon. Only exiled Meronites, who dont like to be called arabs. Chaldean 04:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Oh, by the way, Sargonious/King Legit reverted my edit . I reverted back. --Khoikhoi 04:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I don't agree with the revert of Khoikhoi who seems to believe Benne's and Michael("Suryoyo")'s assertions that Maronites and Melkites are "Syriacs", which is totally fantasist: they are 100% arabized since the XVIIth-XVIIIth century and even if a few present-day Maronites (but no Melkite) claim non-Arab ethnic ancestries (mostly Phoenician or Mardaite), an eminent Maronite (converted to Protestantism) scholar, Butrus al-Bustani, was one of the main initiators of the Arab cultural revival in the XIXth century, an Orthodox Melkite teacher, Michel Aflaq, was one of the three founders and ideologue of the Ba'th party in the 1940s, Nayef Hawatmeh and George Habash, both Palestinian or Jordanian Melkite Orthodox, have been the founders of two left-wing (Arab) Palestinian organizations (PFLP and DFLP) etc. The genetic origins of the Middle Eastern ethnic groups and communities or the languages spoken by their ancesters is not relevant for their present-day ethnic and national identification. --Pylambert 07:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should also revert assyrian article only to consists to the nestorian group, because assyrians within the chaldeans and syriacs arent many. Mostly chaldeans wants the chaldean name and the syriacs wants syriac or aramean. About maronites, some of the wishes to create a seperate entity. Again Wikipedia isnt about what one person thinks, but what we all agree on. we have obviously not reched an agreement here, thus the assyrians is merging everything they like to the assyrian people. But there are other ideologies, other thoughts one example: syriacs as an ethnicty. please dont make negative comments about this [to assyrianists].  Accept that there are other thoughts then yours, im more then happy to discuss. but dont be tyriants. anyhow in the same way you guys have reverted all the work wich has been done in this short time. please know that there will come persons after you an change it all again. wikipedia isnt about putting your personal thoughts, but rather to try to show what is accurate. in this case not only assyrians to have control over the articles, but to give some space for other thinkers. Else it will be that one aramean will be admin in the future and change everything to aramean, wich is also wrong. Michael 09:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for revert