This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Aramea, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ArameaWikipedia:WikiProject ArameaTemplate:WikiProject ArameaAramea articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
@Monochrome Monitor: I agree wholeheartedly Wikipedia should be neutral and should purely serve to display sourced facts, not pushing agendas of any kind, Assyrian or Aramean. In this case, I am under the impression it would be biased to not put the Aramean people category in the Assyrian people category. This is because scholars agree that the terms Syriac and Aramean refer to Assyrians.[1] By not including the Aramean people category within the Assyrian people category, this would suggest a pro-Aramean bias that they are a separate ethnic group to Assyrians, contrary to reputable sources. Mugsalot (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient Arameans and Ancient Assyrians are very distinct peoples. Modern Arameans and Assyrians are quite similar culturally, as Neo-Aramaic speaking Eastern Christians. Syriac Christians are not just found in Assyria in the sense of northern mesopotamia, but also in the levant, which is geographically historic Aram. In light of the fact that Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Middle East and given Christianity's zeal for evangelizing (the Nestorian Church in particular was particularly active in missionary activities), it is extremely unlikely that modern populations who have two cultural traits that were once very common in the Middle East before Arabization and Islamization are a homogenous group.Take the Arab World for example, just because they all speak Arabic and are generally Muslim doesn't mean they all come from the Arabian peninsula, which is where Arabic and Islam are from. While there are many Arabian tribes spread throughout the Arab world and most Arabs do have significant Arabian admixture, they were originally distinct peoples, and some "Arabs", like Tunisians, are not Arab in the ethnic sense at all. Their apparent homogeneity is a result of Arabization and Islamization.I'd argue its the same with Syriacs. They were all Aramaized and Christianized. Some are actually Aramean and others are actually Assyrian, most are probably a mixture of both. Ethnic Assyrians were never the majority outside of Mesopotamia and were at times a minority in their own empire.The (Neo-)Assyrian classification makes sense for Iraqi Syriacs centered around the ninevah plains (I'm not the sort who calls Assyrians "Christian Arabs", that's just stupid.), but it makes little sense for Maronites centered around the Anti-lebanon mountains. Having an Aramean bias would mean putting Assyrian people into the category Aramean people, which I did not do. While Syria is a corruption of Assyria and thus Syrian a corruption of Assyrian in the Greek language, Assyrian and Syrian are distinct words in Aramaic.--Monochrome_Monitor 15:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)--Monochrome_Monitor14:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I would enjoy a discussion concerning ancient Arameans and ancient Assyrians, I think it would constitute original research to base our edits on the information you have provided. If you're interested I have collected a number of quotes on the ancient Arameans and Assyrians in my sandbox which you are welcome to read. The sources I have provided make it clear the terms Syriac and Aramean are merely self-identifications used by Assyrians and do not refer to separate ethnic groups thus it would be sensible to place the Aramean people category in the Assyrian people category. In regards to ancient Arameans, who I agree are separate to ancient Assyrians, they can be found separately in the Arameans category. Mugsalot (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course I'm not a primary source, I never said that. I'm just engaging in human conversation. And you're missing the point. Arameanists believe all Syriacs are Arameans just as Assyrianists believe all are Assyrians. You are acting like there is a scholarly consensus on what they can call themselves. There is not. There are plenty of quotes linking Arameans to Syriacs as well. Many are covered in this paper. My position is I don't want wikipedia to take a side. Have you seen the talk page at Arameans? Everyone saying "I'm right, you're wrong". It's terrible. Everyone should be allowed to call themselves what they want, its the only nuetral position.--Monochrome_Monitor15:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute. Your sandbox has some nuanced views affirming the multiethnicness of the neo-assyrian empire re the Aramaens, do you believe modern Assyrians are similarly multiethnic? If so I misjudged you.--Monochrome_Monitor15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
