This article is a disaster and its references are anything but reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.190.37 ( talk) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The arameans disappeared long b.c. The syriacs of today are syriacs - not arameans. This is politically motivated hoax. 83.250.107.130 ( talk) 18:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that right, Elias. The TriZ ( talk) 21:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, the Arameans did not disappear long before christ. Many Syriacs today identify themselfs as Arameans. Many experts (see Sebastian Brock for example) in this subject also agrees that the Arameans are the ancestors of the todays Syriacs. Therefore, removing POV-template. The TriZ ( talk) 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- being somebody's ancestor doesn't mean being that person. Aren't you a Homo habilis, TriZ? That's strange, because you have lots of ancestors that were. dab (𒁳) 12:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest there should be a section about language and about the Syriac-Aramean culture. I will add them, so that we can start build on them. The TriZ ( talk) 21:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
They Syriacs today identify themselves as Assyrians mostly and Arameans.. but they are one people so its wrong to write a article only about the syriac-aramaic people! it should be merged to the article Western Syriacs! ( talk) 02:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
the main article is at Assyrian people. No reference is cited that establishes this group as separate, neither here nor at Western Syriacs. The only defining characteristic we have is adherence their being "Jacobites", viz., a denominational position in technical questions of Christology. If no sources are cited soon, we will just have to merge this article. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a content fork of Assyrian people. The naming dispute behind this is covered at Names of Syriac Christians. The "Aramaean" position has its dedicated article at Syriac-Aramaic identity. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
i think that Syriac-aramaic identity should be merged into this article VegardNorman ( talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The infobox airily refers to "adherents.com estimates". Adherents.com gives not a single hit for either Syriac-Aramaean or Syriac-Aramaic. Adherents.com in the relevant entries [1] [2] has: "Syrian Catholic", "Syrian Jacobites, Independent (Thozhiyur)", "Syrian Orthodox Church (Jacobite)", "Syrian Orthodox Church (St. Thomas / West Syrian rite)", and "Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch". Now please make clear what this article is proposing to talk about. If it is talking about the " Syrian Jacobites", that's fine, let's merge it into Western Syriacs. If this article is trying to discuss some other group known as "Syriac-Aramaean" or "Syriac-Aramaic", let's see some quotable SOURCE please that actually calls them that. Adherents.com doesn't. dab (𒁳) 12:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Beacuse the people are not known as "Syriac-Arameans". They are today known as Syriacs. But because of some people thinks that Syriacs means assyrian, we are forced to put the Aramean after Syriac --> Syriac-Aramean. I suggest an new article name like Aramaeans (Modern) or Syriacs.
VegardNorman (
talk) 12:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- we are "forced" to no such course. You want to move the Assyrian people article, do a proper proposal, not a content fork under your preferred title. I ask you once again to read WP:CFORK. What you are doing is straightforward disruption. Yon don't even pretent this is anything else than a cfork born of a title dispute. You are in straightforward violation of our editing guidelines. Present your proposal civilly and coherently at Talk:Assyrian people and I will support a move to a more neutral title. But stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. dab (𒁳) 12:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- AS long as there is a group calling them selfs for arameans, i have the fullest right to write about them. I Suggest You present a proposal, since you are the only one who wants to move both articles SYuriac-arameans and assyiran people to a more nuetraul titel like Syriac/Assyrian people. I support this move, but i think that you are the one to present the proposal.
VegardNorman (
talk) 15:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- i Also think that the most neutral title for this both articles would be Syriac People, because of both groups accept the term Syriacs, but not all accept term Assyrian. Syriac-arameans only accept the terms Syriacs, but the group Assyrians accept both terms Syriacs and Assyrians. And also, the name of the both groups in Syriac language is Suryoye, wich means Syriacs in english. Term Othuroye means Assyrians, and only a minority of both groups accepts that term. Majority of Assyrian group call them selfs for Suryoye (Suryaye) wich means Syriacs... Syriac-Arameans, Syriac-Assyrians, Syriac-christianity.. i think the most neutral and common title and to unite all groups would be Syriac people instead of Syriac/Assyrians or Assyrian people. And then articles like this one, western syriacs, eastern assyrians etc will redirect to this new title "Syriac People". What do you think? VegardNorman ( talk) 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- AS long as there is a group calling them selfs for arameans, i have the fullest right to write about them. I Suggest You present a proposal, since you are the only one who wants to move both articles SYuriac-arameans and assyiran people to a more nuetraul titel like Syriac/Assyrian people. I support this move, but i think that you are the one to present the proposal.
VegardNorman (
talk) 15:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
VergardNorman, what source do you cite for "a group calling them selfs for arameans". Once you cite such a source: is this group, or is it not, included in our estimate of "3.3-4.3 million" at
Assyrian people? How large is this group "calling them selfs for arameans" and what is your source for that estimate? Yes, your suggestion to move
Assyrian people to a new title
Syriac people makes much more sense. Why don't you propose that civilly and patiently at
Talk:Assyrian people.
dab
(𒁳) 17:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Check discussion at
[3]
VegardNorman (
talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- where I see you saying "Aramaean, Aramaean, Aramaean". I was asking for a reference. Sorry, but as long as all we have are hysterical debates on talkpage, there is no way this article can survive. Give us some credible reference. An encyclopedia article, a credible census, anything, and I'll be happy to keep this article. So far, all we have are adherents.com estimates for the number of Jacobites. Which is fair enough, but no "Aramaeans" are mentioned. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- The source adherents does not decide what to call the people, and neither do you. The title on the article should assume from what the people call them selfs. And no one call themselfs for jacobites. All call them selfs for syriacs wich is real name. In later time many have returned to the older and the proper term Arameans. VegardNorman ( talk) 12:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
As you can read on a website as Urhoy, there are -- throughout the history of the Syriacs -- plenty of sources stating that the Suryāye are the same people as the ancient Aramaeans, which is a fact acknowledged both within the group itself and outside (e.g. Greek historians, and more recently German philologists and Syriacists). As far as I know, there are no published polls indicating the identification with the Aramaeans among the modern Syriac population, but the fact that there are organizations like the Föderation der Aramäer in Deutschland, Syrianska/Arameiska Akademiker Föreningen in Sweden, and Platform Aram in the Netherlands, plus a lot of Suryoye clubs that carry the Aramaen flag, it should be clear that there is a substantial support for this identification among the Syriacs. -- Benne ['bɛnə] ( talk) 13:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- True Benne, but this phenomenom should be clearifed in that these organizations and clubs are mostly, if not all, limited to Syriac population in Northern Europe, and not in the Middle East. Chaldean ( talk) 03:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- good. then cite this source at History of the Assyrian people. In my book saying anyone is "the same people" as another people 3,000 years earlier is nonsense, unless Syriacs have an extraordinary life expectancy. But if your sources are academic, by all means cite them. At the proper place. This is still a pov fork by any account. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we agree that WP:CITE is non-negotiable policy? Good. Then what are our reliable sources for a "Syriac-Aramaean people" different from generic Syriacs (Suryoye)?
I do not get a single google hit for this name. Not on google books, not on google scholar, not on google news, and not even on the internet at large. None. If you cannot provide some notable source establishing this as a valid topic, there can be no debate. I will AfD this title as an unconfirmed neologism. dab (𒁳) 07:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
to be fair, spelling it "Aramean" gives a few dozen hits:
including one lone hit on google scholar. If we do not delete this title, we clearly need to redirect it to the main article immediately. There is simply no room for debate here until actual sources are presented. dab (𒁳) 08:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dab, the reason your not getting the hits is because nobody calls themselves Syriac-Aramean, but rather just Aramean. This page was created to talk about a group of people within the Syriac Orthodox community that does not identify themselves as Assyrian. Similar to the page
Chaldean Christian. But we need to be clear on what this page should cover; not ALL Syriac Orthodox people identify as Aramean and it would be wrong to paint them as such. This page needs to be clear that it is talking about a group within the Syriac Orthodox people who live in Northern Europe and identify themselves as Aramean only.
Chaldean (
talk) 13:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- so why do we have it at this title? We cannot have two articles on the same group just because there are two names for it. You want to create a redirect
Aramaeans (modern) pointing to
Assyrian people, and mention at the main article that this is an alternative name. If you want to make this about "Syriac Orthodox people in Northern Europe" exclusively, point it to
Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden.
dab
(𒁳) 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- so why do we have it at this title? - so now your problem is with the title and not the actual existence of the page?
Chaldean (
talk) 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- sigh. "This page" exists already, at Assyrian people. The problem is that it was duplicated under this title. We at Wikipedia call this a WP:CFORK. I have now solved the problem by turning this title into a disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 14:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- so why do we have it at this title? - so now your problem is with the title and not the actual existence of the page?
Chaldean (
talk) 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- so why do we have it at this title? We cannot have two articles on the same group just because there are two names for it. You want to create a redirect
Aramaeans (modern) pointing to
Assyrian people, and mention at the main article that this is an alternative name. If you want to make this about "Syriac Orthodox people in Northern Europe" exclusively, point it to
Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden.
dab
(𒁳) 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Chaldean, please read this and understand, not only in Northern Europe are people calling themselfs Aramean (identify as Aramean). In Syria if course there are alot, and also in Turkey and im sure there are some people in Iraq to. The TriZ ( talk) 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- You know its not true when it comes to Syria, Turkey, and of course in Iraq. If you have proof that states otherwise, then please post it. Chaldean ( talk) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? The Syriac Orthodox Church has its seat in Syria. I mean, I have relatives who has their brothers, sisters and parents in Syria. You don't have to be an Einstein to realize that there are alot of people in Syria who identifies as Syriacs (Arameans). And when it comes to Turkey, for crying out loud, my parents is from Turkey, i have uncles still living in Turkey. I ask you again, are you serious? Who's the indoctrinated here? The TriZ ( talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Quick google search, gave me this, [4], check history then Syrians, and there u have it, "Descendants of the Syrians, the Aramies,...". The Syriac community of Istanbul and Turkey. Another gave me this, [5], "The Syrians are the Arameans themselves, the inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent region (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Iraq, and Southeastern Turkey)." (BY Rev. Fr. Dr. JOSEPH TARZI). Certainly there are more to find, but just to show you how wrong you are. The TriZ ( talk) 01:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- You don't have to be an Einstein to realize that there are alot of people in Syria who identifies as Syriacs (Arameans). - Syriac yes, Aramean no. And that is a fact. Chaldean ( talk) 15:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you for real? Fact? What flag do you think the people in Syria uses? I just showed how wrong you are, it's like your living in a world for yourself. Autism i believe it's called. The TriZ ( talk) 01:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Those kinds of statements will only hurt you and you won't be taken seriously on Wikipedia. Since when flag waving is considered a decleration of ones ethnicity? You have never waved a Swedish flag in your life? And where has it been established that the "Aramean flag" is Aramean, rather then Syriac? Nobody in the middle east call themselves Aramaean, and if you have good evidence that suggestes otherwise, then I'd love to see it. Chaldean ( talk) 16:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You obviously can't discuss this. It is of importance to which flag you identify with, I showed you two links above, haven't you checked them? Maybe people don't call themselfs Aramean, but they do identify to the Aramean identity and not the Assyrian. By the way, nobody will be taken you seriously on Wikipedia if you always write untrue statements. The TriZ ( talk) 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Untrue statements according to you, does not make then untrue. I find this part interesting; Maybe people don't call themselfs Aramean, but they do identify to the Aramean identity and not the Assyrian. - Really? Even if they don't consider themselves Arameans (which they don't), they embrace there history based on Aramean kingdoms? I'd like to see legit books cited for that. Chaldean ( talk) 18:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Untrue statments according to the sources. And wtf are you talking about? They call themselfs Syriacs, and identify to the Syriac-Aramean identity, for example, in Turkey they say Suryani. The TriZ ( talk) 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly, Suryani, not something silly like Aramean. So the point is dont force identity apon people. Chaldean ( talk) 21:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
What's your problem? You can't read? Or you just don't understand? I clearly showed you sources, for example this one [6], the "Suryani" society in Istanbul and Turkey, they say under history, "Descendants of the Syrians, the Aramies...". So stop your lies and stop wasting my time. The TriZ ( talk) 00:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is a disaster and its references are anything but reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.190.37 ( talk) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The arameans disappeared long b.c. The syriacs of today are syriacs - not arameans. This is politically motivated hoax. 83.250.107.130 ( talk) 18:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that right, Elias. The TriZ ( talk) 21:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, the Arameans did not disappear long before christ. Many Syriacs today identify themselfs as Arameans. Many experts (see Sebastian Brock for example) in this subject also agrees that the Arameans are the ancestors of the todays Syriacs. Therefore, removing POV-template. The TriZ ( talk) 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- being somebody's ancestor doesn't mean being that person. Aren't you a Homo habilis, TriZ? That's strange, because you have lots of ancestors that were. dab (𒁳) 12:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest there should be a section about language and about the Syriac-Aramean culture. I will add them, so that we can start build on them. The TriZ ( talk) 21:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
They Syriacs today identify themselves as Assyrians mostly and Arameans.. but they are one people so its wrong to write a article only about the syriac-aramaic people! it should be merged to the article Western Syriacs! ( talk) 02:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
the main article is at Assyrian people. No reference is cited that establishes this group as separate, neither here nor at Western Syriacs. The only defining characteristic we have is adherence their being "Jacobites", viz., a denominational position in technical questions of Christology. If no sources are cited soon, we will just have to merge this article. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a content fork of Assyrian people. The naming dispute behind this is covered at Names of Syriac Christians. The "Aramaean" position has its dedicated article at Syriac-Aramaic identity. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
i think that Syriac-aramaic identity should be merged into this article VegardNorman ( talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The infobox airily refers to "adherents.com estimates". Adherents.com gives not a single hit for either Syriac-Aramaean or Syriac-Aramaic. Adherents.com in the relevant entries [1] [2] has: "Syrian Catholic", "Syrian Jacobites, Independent (Thozhiyur)", "Syrian Orthodox Church (Jacobite)", "Syrian Orthodox Church (St. Thomas / West Syrian rite)", and "Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch". Now please make clear what this article is proposing to talk about. If it is talking about the " Syrian Jacobites", that's fine, let's merge it into Western Syriacs. If this article is trying to discuss some other group known as "Syriac-Aramaean" or "Syriac-Aramaic", let's see some quotable SOURCE please that actually calls them that. Adherents.com doesn't. dab (𒁳) 12:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Beacuse the people are not known as "Syriac-Arameans". They are today known as Syriacs. But because of some people thinks that Syriacs means assyrian, we are forced to put the Aramean after Syriac --> Syriac-Aramean. I suggest an new article name like Aramaeans (Modern) or Syriacs.
VegardNorman (
talk) 12:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- we are "forced" to no such course. You want to move the Assyrian people article, do a proper proposal, not a content fork under your preferred title. I ask you once again to read WP:CFORK. What you are doing is straightforward disruption. Yon don't even pretent this is anything else than a cfork born of a title dispute. You are in straightforward violation of our editing guidelines. Present your proposal civilly and coherently at Talk:Assyrian people and I will support a move to a more neutral title. But stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. dab (𒁳) 12:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- AS long as there is a group calling them selfs for arameans, i have the fullest right to write about them. I Suggest You present a proposal, since you are the only one who wants to move both articles SYuriac-arameans and assyiran people to a more nuetraul titel like Syriac/Assyrian people. I support this move, but i think that you are the one to present the proposal.
VegardNorman (
talk) 15:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- i Also think that the most neutral title for this both articles would be Syriac People, because of both groups accept the term Syriacs, but not all accept term Assyrian. Syriac-arameans only accept the terms Syriacs, but the group Assyrians accept both terms Syriacs and Assyrians. And also, the name of the both groups in Syriac language is Suryoye, wich means Syriacs in english. Term Othuroye means Assyrians, and only a minority of both groups accepts that term. Majority of Assyrian group call them selfs for Suryoye (Suryaye) wich means Syriacs... Syriac-Arameans, Syriac-Assyrians, Syriac-christianity.. i think the most neutral and common title and to unite all groups would be Syriac people instead of Syriac/Assyrians or Assyrian people. And then articles like this one, western syriacs, eastern assyrians etc will redirect to this new title "Syriac People". What do you think? VegardNorman ( talk) 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- AS long as there is a group calling them selfs for arameans, i have the fullest right to write about them. I Suggest You present a proposal, since you are the only one who wants to move both articles SYuriac-arameans and assyiran people to a more nuetraul titel like Syriac/Assyrian people. I support this move, but i think that you are the one to present the proposal.
VegardNorman (
talk) 15:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
VergardNorman, what source do you cite for "a group calling them selfs for arameans". Once you cite such a source: is this group, or is it not, included in our estimate of "3.3-4.3 million" at
Assyrian people? How large is this group "calling them selfs for arameans" and what is your source for that estimate? Yes, your suggestion to move
Assyrian people to a new title
Syriac people makes much more sense. Why don't you propose that civilly and patiently at
Talk:Assyrian people.
dab
(𒁳) 17:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Check discussion at
[3]
VegardNorman (
talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- where I see you saying "Aramaean, Aramaean, Aramaean". I was asking for a reference. Sorry, but as long as all we have are hysterical debates on talkpage, there is no way this article can survive. Give us some credible reference. An encyclopedia article, a credible census, anything, and I'll be happy to keep this article. So far, all we have are adherents.com estimates for the number of Jacobites. Which is fair enough, but no "Aramaeans" are mentioned. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- The source adherents does not decide what to call the people, and neither do you. The title on the article should assume from what the people call them selfs. And no one call themselfs for jacobites. All call them selfs for syriacs wich is real name. In later time many have returned to the older and the proper term Arameans. VegardNorman ( talk) 12:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
As you can read on a website as Urhoy, there are -- throughout the history of the Syriacs -- plenty of sources stating that the Suryāye are the same people as the ancient Aramaeans, which is a fact acknowledged both within the group itself and outside (e.g. Greek historians, and more recently German philologists and Syriacists). As far as I know, there are no published polls indicating the identification with the Aramaeans among the modern Syriac population, but the fact that there are organizations like the Föderation der Aramäer in Deutschland, Syrianska/Arameiska Akademiker Föreningen in Sweden, and Platform Aram in the Netherlands, plus a lot of Suryoye clubs that carry the Aramaen flag, it should be clear that there is a substantial support for this identification among the Syriacs. -- Benne ['bɛnə] ( talk) 13:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- True Benne, but this phenomenom should be clearifed in that these organizations and clubs are mostly, if not all, limited to Syriac population in Northern Europe, and not in the Middle East. Chaldean ( talk) 03:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- good. then cite this source at History of the Assyrian people. In my book saying anyone is "the same people" as another people 3,000 years earlier is nonsense, unless Syriacs have an extraordinary life expectancy. But if your sources are academic, by all means cite them. At the proper place. This is still a pov fork by any account. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we agree that WP:CITE is non-negotiable policy? Good. Then what are our reliable sources for a "Syriac-Aramaean people" different from generic Syriacs (Suryoye)?
I do not get a single google hit for this name. Not on google books, not on google scholar, not on google news, and not even on the internet at large. None. If you cannot provide some notable source establishing this as a valid topic, there can be no debate. I will AfD this title as an unconfirmed neologism. dab (𒁳) 07:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
to be fair, spelling it "Aramean" gives a few dozen hits:
including one lone hit on google scholar. If we do not delete this title, we clearly need to redirect it to the main article immediately. There is simply no room for debate here until actual sources are presented. dab (𒁳) 08:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dab, the reason your not getting the hits is because nobody calls themselves Syriac-Aramean, but rather just Aramean. This page was created to talk about a group of people within the Syriac Orthodox community that does not identify themselves as Assyrian. Similar to the page
Chaldean Christian. But we need to be clear on what this page should cover; not ALL Syriac Orthodox people identify as Aramean and it would be wrong to paint them as such. This page needs to be clear that it is talking about a group within the Syriac Orthodox people who live in Northern Europe and identify themselves as Aramean only.
Chaldean (
talk) 13:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- so why do we have it at this title? We cannot have two articles on the same group just because there are two names for it. You want to create a redirect
Aramaeans (modern) pointing to
Assyrian people, and mention at the main article that this is an alternative name. If you want to make this about "Syriac Orthodox people in Northern Europe" exclusively, point it to
Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden.
dab
(𒁳) 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- so why do we have it at this title? - so now your problem is with the title and not the actual existence of the page?
Chaldean (
talk) 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- sigh. "This page" exists already, at Assyrian people. The problem is that it was duplicated under this title. We at Wikipedia call this a WP:CFORK. I have now solved the problem by turning this title into a disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 14:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- so why do we have it at this title? - so now your problem is with the title and not the actual existence of the page?
Chaldean (
talk) 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- so why do we have it at this title? We cannot have two articles on the same group just because there are two names for it. You want to create a redirect
Aramaeans (modern) pointing to
Assyrian people, and mention at the main article that this is an alternative name. If you want to make this about "Syriac Orthodox people in Northern Europe" exclusively, point it to
Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden.
dab
(𒁳) 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Chaldean, please read this and understand, not only in Northern Europe are people calling themselfs Aramean (identify as Aramean). In Syria if course there are alot, and also in Turkey and im sure there are some people in Iraq to. The TriZ ( talk) 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- You know its not true when it comes to Syria, Turkey, and of course in Iraq. If you have proof that states otherwise, then please post it. Chaldean ( talk) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? The Syriac Orthodox Church has its seat in Syria. I mean, I have relatives who has their brothers, sisters and parents in Syria. You don't have to be an Einstein to realize that there are alot of people in Syria who identifies as Syriacs (Arameans). And when it comes to Turkey, for crying out loud, my parents is from Turkey, i have uncles still living in Turkey. I ask you again, are you serious? Who's the indoctrinated here? The TriZ ( talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Quick google search, gave me this, [4], check history then Syrians, and there u have it, "Descendants of the Syrians, the Aramies,...". The Syriac community of Istanbul and Turkey. Another gave me this, [5], "The Syrians are the Arameans themselves, the inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent region (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Iraq, and Southeastern Turkey)." (BY Rev. Fr. Dr. JOSEPH TARZI). Certainly there are more to find, but just to show you how wrong you are. The TriZ ( talk) 01:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- You don't have to be an Einstein to realize that there are alot of people in Syria who identifies as Syriacs (Arameans). - Syriac yes, Aramean no. And that is a fact. Chaldean ( talk) 15:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you for real? Fact? What flag do you think the people in Syria uses? I just showed how wrong you are, it's like your living in a world for yourself. Autism i believe it's called. The TriZ ( talk) 01:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Those kinds of statements will only hurt you and you won't be taken seriously on Wikipedia. Since when flag waving is considered a decleration of ones ethnicity? You have never waved a Swedish flag in your life? And where has it been established that the "Aramean flag" is Aramean, rather then Syriac? Nobody in the middle east call themselves Aramaean, and if you have good evidence that suggestes otherwise, then I'd love to see it. Chaldean ( talk) 16:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You obviously can't discuss this. It is of importance to which flag you identify with, I showed you two links above, haven't you checked them? Maybe people don't call themselfs Aramean, but they do identify to the Aramean identity and not the Assyrian. By the way, nobody will be taken you seriously on Wikipedia if you always write untrue statements. The TriZ ( talk) 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Untrue statements according to you, does not make then untrue. I find this part interesting; Maybe people don't call themselfs Aramean, but they do identify to the Aramean identity and not the Assyrian. - Really? Even if they don't consider themselves Arameans (which they don't), they embrace there history based on Aramean kingdoms? I'd like to see legit books cited for that. Chaldean ( talk) 18:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Untrue statments according to the sources. And wtf are you talking about? They call themselfs Syriacs, and identify to the Syriac-Aramean identity, for example, in Turkey they say Suryani. The TriZ ( talk) 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly, Suryani, not something silly like Aramean. So the point is dont force identity apon people. Chaldean ( talk) 21:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
What's your problem? You can't read? Or you just don't understand? I clearly showed you sources, for example this one [6], the "Suryani" society in Istanbul and Turkey, they say under history, "Descendants of the Syrians, the Aramies...". So stop your lies and stop wasting my time. The TriZ ( talk) 00:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)