Talk:Syriac

What's new?

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)

"Arameans"

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)

Thanks Khoikhoi for taking care of it. Chaldean 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we not missing something?

Assyrians, Chaldeans, Maronites and Melkites are all mentioned. But are we not missing a people who (are they not bigger than all the other ones?) are not calling themselves any of the mentioned ones? In Sweden they are called "Syrianer" and there are tens of thousand Syrianer only in Sweden. These people (we) are not calling themselves Assyrians, not Chaldeans, not Maronites and not Melkites! So why are we pretending that these (including me) people do not exist? I know that many are aware of this and aware of the name discussion (syriacs vs assyrians) that is going on. But this is not the right way to handle this, by ignoring us! I see that someone just edited the page and added "Syriac people" (unfortunately he/she removed "assyrians" which is a proof of this dispute), and that is a start but not enough. This people, in my humble opinion, should get the whole "Syriacs" page, why? Because neither assyrians, chaldeans or any other group calls themselves syriacs. When you meet an assyrian he/she says "I'm an assyrian" and not "I'm a syriac". This is the assyrian flag http://merit.blogg.se/images/assyriskaflaggan_1139234927.gif and this is the syriac flag http://www.saaf.info/articles/images/syrianska_flaggan.jpg Obviously there is a difference! Syriac 11:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

They are not being ignored, they are mentioned; did you not the "Members of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Church. Some refer to themselves as Assyrians or Arameans. "? And the reason why Assyrian is also here is because their are quit a few in the homeland that do like to call themselves Syrani (ie another name of Assyrian.) Chaldean 13:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

But clearly this page is ambiguous. I don't think the structure is satisfying enough. If I would like to add the syriac flag which I posted earlier I would not know where to add it. Clearly the Assyrians have another flag which is not the red one. Maybe this content should be moved to a new page called "Syriac Christians" and this page would be denoted fully to the "syriac people" with the red flag. I'm not sure but I don't think Assyrians call themselves Syriacs. That would be the syriac people (once again I'm refering to the syriac flag) who would call themselves that. Syriac 17:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The word Syriac has two demintions. Either meaning Christians (Suraya), thus if you call your self Suraya or Suroyo then you belong under the page of Syriac Christianity (I think this page should be moved to Syriac Christians.) The other demintion is the word clearly meaning Assyrian, since Syria/Syrian is derivited from Assyrian.

But clearly this page is ambiguous. - how can that be when this page is a disambiguation page? What bais is their in this apge that you are concerned about?

If I would like to add the syriac flag which I posted earlier I would not know where to add it. Clearly the Assyrians have another flag which is not the red one. The flag is already posted in the Aramaeans page.

I'm not sure but I don't think Assyrians call themselves Syriacs. - yes their are ACOE Assyrians who call themselves Suraya as well. And note that historically Syrians meant Assyrians, thus thats why it is here as well.

to a new page called "Syriac Christians" and this page would be denoted fully to the "syriac people" with the red flag. - their is the Syriac Christianity page already. I think it should be moved to Syriac Christians thou. Chaldean 18:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to draw a line between theories and fact. Ph.D. Sebastian P. Brock from Oxford (and Cambridge) University have shown that syrians are not assyrians. The word syriac means Suryoyo. Syrians (syriacs) do not call themselves arameans, though they are ethnic arameans, but they call themselves syrians (syriacs), in Sweden it would be syrianer. Ephrem the Syrian (306 – 373) has written that he is of aramean ethnic, not assyrian. The TriZ (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Brock hasn't proven anything. Syriac Orthodox Christians are not ethnic Aramaeans (this is a religious propaganda) and "Syriacs" you have no copyright on. Assyrians from the Church of the East and Chaldean Catholic Church are just as much Syriacs as you are and no one in these churches call themselves Aramaeans. On top of that, in the Syriac Orthodox Church, you have many Syriacs who are of the opinion that they are Assyrians. So don't blow this Aramaean thing you got going on out of proportions. Of all Syriac Christians you so called "Aramaeans" are a tiny fringe minority no one cares about. And Ephrem the Syrian was very biased because of the old testament and its depiction of his own forefathers (as are most so called Aramaeans from the Syriac Orthodox Church today, seeing how the curse of Ephrem the Syrian has affected them). — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop talking bullshit, the majority of the members of the Syriac Orthodox Church says that they are ethnic Arameans (members of India not counted). Im also getting tired of you calling Ephrem the Syrian an religious fanatic, and other unintelligent things, which in one way could be expected from someone like you but on the other hand shouldnt be allowed to say here in wikipedia (or somewhere else for that matter). The TriZ (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop talking bullshit, the majority of the members of the Syriac Orthodox Church says that they are ethnic Arameans - If your going to make bold statements like this on Wiki, you need to back it up with multiple reliable sources. Chaldean (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I could say the same thing to you and EliasAlucard. The TriZ (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We both have not claimed the majority of Syriac Orthodox say they are Assyrian. So what are you saying? Chaldean (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Syrians * Syriacs

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)

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)

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)

Gareth, please give your thoughts on Benne's edits on this subject as well. Chaldean 19:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The overlap argument doesn't make sense, since the Chaldaeans are also included, many of whom consider themselves Assyrians. Also, the people who call themselves Aramaeans are not only to be found in the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic Churches.

I think it would be more practical to list the "ethnic" groups first (Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldaeans), and then the various churches.

Since this is a disambiguation page (for now), all the relevant links should be included. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Define many? Not all consider themselfs Assyrians. I doubt that if all the worlds population gave enough proof to call it a fact that we are Arameans, you still would deny it. Its your mission in life, to spread your untrue assyrian propaganda. Which is sad. The TriZ (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Melkites

• 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)

If you don't want to mention the Arab and Phoenicians. Simply seperate them as groups that speak Arabic and Syriac is their liturgical language, because its not clear now?

When someone reads it he will think all are Assyrians--Skatewalk 02:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Maronite Arabs and Franks

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)

• What does the Arab Melkites have to do with Assyrians!? — Nothing, as far as I know, but they follow Syriac Christianity, which is our flavour of Christianity. From what I've heard, Melkites are ethnic Greeks. But I can't say I'm an expert on Melkites. Either way, this is a dab page, it shouldn't list every non-notable identification of every ethnic group, that can be mentioned on the actual article's page. As for Maronites, they are not Arabs, they are, as explained here, of a Syriac race (that does not mean Arab or Aramaean). Look, Maronites are not Phoenicians. History, does not connect them with Phoenicians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:10 29 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Elias Melkites are more Arab than the Sunni or Any group, Greek is the language they used because the area was Hellenized. The Ghassanids spoke South Arabian, Aramiac and Greek.

• I take it you didnt take a look at the Patriachal list!

If they are not Arabs, explain the 70% majority of the Arabs Patriachs in the last 400 years! Those are ethnic Arabs.

• Are you going to force the Maronites who want to be known as Phoenicians to be Assyrians!? There is no race in the Mideast, especially in Lebanon!
• If the Lebanese can't identify as Phoenicians, then there is no Assyrians today. Respect other people! (and I don't support the Arameans or Phoenicians, I just respect them for what they want to be!). Now your new theory I never heard of it before! Are you actually claiming that the Maronites are Assyrians and all these Arabs were just confused Patriachs who didn't know that they are Assyrians?--Skatewalk 06:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Syriacs are a ethnic group, they are not assyrians

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)

Duly noted. Syriac means Assyriac and the ethnic group is Assyrian. Please read WP:NPOV. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 19:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Oh and by the way, it's called an ethnic group. Hope that helps. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So you mean that the "Assyrian naming dispute" article is created to show that Syriacs (Arameans) are really Assyrians? Dont tell people to read WP:NPOV when its so totally obvious, and proven, that you are a POV-editor. The TriZ (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Obviously we had a discussion and I asked Elias a question, which was: "So you mean that the "Assyrian naming dispute" article is created to show that Syriacs (Arameans) are really Assyrians?" And then you came and change the subject to something irrelevant. The TriZ (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

You did not. The TriZ (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Maronites

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)

Requested move 8 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Syriac (disambiguation) → Syriac – The Syriacs as a Middle Eastern people, with an associated Church, language and culture as a whole. The current disambiguation setup doesn't reflect that. Syriac is a redirect from 2002 pointing to the language. That redirect is currently being used on 300+ pages, but many of them are thus mistakenly linking to the language, and should be redirected to the people or their Church. I therefore propose to make the disambiguation page the landing page, as with other adjectives in the same geo-cultural space (Assyrian, Chaldean, ...). Midas02 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Syriac looks like most of these are going in the right place, the language. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I obviously haven't gone through all of them, but from the few I sampled, some were wrong (and don't forget editors will have made an effort to link to the correct article once they noticed Syriac was going to the language). But that's beside the question, the question is if the language is a primary topic here. I don't feel it is. --Midas02 (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support, as a Google Books search does seem to indicate that the language's claim to being the primary topic is moot, the religion and culture are rather common too. Can you preemptively go through the list and disambiguate it, and see how many broken links there were? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Best to leave it until it would be moved. Disambig tools such as DisamAssist can then help to rapidly go through the list. --Midas02 (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you know how to use pipe links, there is no downside to doing it now. It would certainly help your case if you compared 300+ to an actual number, as opposed to 'many' and 'some'. Given the age of the assumption of primary topic, I'd say anything over 15% is indicative that the assumption is void. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.