Talk:Syriacs/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

Merge

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)

I agree with Garzo, I would prefer integrating information from the Arameans and Assyrian people articles into this Syriacs article. --Benne 23:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that syriac should be used as umbrella for the other names as aramean,assyrian,chaldeans and so on. Due to the fact that syriac is more accurate throughout the history and the other names are more political. Suryoyo 00:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Khoi Khoi

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)

Benne

What's with you reverting my revision? I cleaned it up to a higher standard.

I'm not so sure about that ... --Benne 20:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Suryoyo does not mean "Assyrian" (check your Syriac dictionary), it simply means "Syrian"

It is true that many Syriacs now speak the languages of their (former) host countries, but Aramaic is still used quite extensively, also in the diaspora.

There are various Syriac Protestant denominations, in Turkey, Iran, Europe. They are also part of Syriac Christianity. --Benne 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Check my dictionary? That's funny. Lemme check my head.

And please for love of God, if a person is responisble for article of "syriacs" in wikipedian. then I would presume that they know the difference between suroyo and suryoyo. suroyo is a syriac word for a christian, and suryoyo is an identifier for a people that is the suryoyo people. suryoyo -> syrian, currently used by arabs syria/syrian, wheras the change to syriac/syriacs. that is Syriac is an identity of a people and a pretty natural name for all political names as assyrian, aramean, chaldean... By the way if you would by any chance think that christian is in syriac mshehoyo then you have mistaken, due to that there are severeal words in syriac that mean the same thing but with slightly differente attributes, as is for the word muslim in syriac tayyo, and mushlimoyo, same thing but with differente attributes, Im not going to explain the differences here in this forum Suryoyo 12:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Help!

Someone help me out with the Assyrian cuisine article I created!!!

Syria, Assyria

Syria was the Greek name for Aram which was never independant of Assyria until the collapse of the empire. It was later incorporated into other Empires.

Read the article before you decide to revert it again.

I corrected anything conlficting with your views.

Suraya

Benne,

I don't know if you are Syriac. In Sureth (Syriac), a Suraya is an Christian speaker of Aramaic. It was a self designation to distinguish ones self fromt the Pagan (Kapore) Arameans durring the advent of Christianity.

merge all syriacs

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)

maronites are syriacs!

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)

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)

Maronites are Syriacs

But don't list categories that don't exist.

Maronites and Melkites

Lebanese Christians are Syriacs. Remember the story of Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician woman and her daughter.

Categorisation (reply to User:12.15.7.70)

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)

Stubs related to Syriacs

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)

Moved from article

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)

Ancient History

Empires

Civilisations

Kingdoms in late antiquity

Last Stronghold

Mardaites

Our Future Nation

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)

problem of factual accuracy and of manipulation

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)

The problem with people like you is that they dont have any idea of the course of history, I dont think that you even have any insight about the Syriacs. The problem with people like you is that you read popular fact books and build up an historical image of the world based on them. The thing is that those books dont provide any information about the issues that arent popular. Those book always follow the mainstream so that book sells. Real historical books and documents arent from one source. I would appreciate for the sake of the future of wikipedia that persons like you and who have those ideas never becomes admins. It is people like you that wikipedia becomes a propoganda tool rather than an objective encyclopedia with no ties to political parties.

I can say that after beeing active for about 2 month I realize that it is actually useless to have to listen to garbage from people like you, who have no historical accuracy but only political reasons to try to manipulate wikipedia.

best wishes Michael 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Hi, Again I love my nation and I dont tink that kurds should have a nation due to historical reasons. Now, why do people get so angry when others dont think like them? that is the big problem, fanatism. I may not agree with the kurdish vision of a sate but I dont work agains tem, they may work and make their articles as they wish and those who are intersted can discuss what is right and wrong in the kurdish articles. I dont see the problem of beeing pro assyrian state and not pro to a kurdish state. Dont I have the right to think that? your maby you guys cant accept that there are other ideas than yours. From my point of view I dont think that kurds should have a kurdish state due to the simple fact that parts of the so called state is actually bethnahrin. or as many of you call assyria, (i dont really care). As long as they proclaim my land I obliged to be against them, same goes for the currently occupation of the "modern" states iraq/syria/lebanon and so on. Im not in a political party, nor am I in any activity for persuting a independence. Im just claiming my rights. Assyria is my country not turkish,kurdish or arab. You pylambert and sargonius in other hands are political and talk about working with kurds and so on for future assyrian and so on. Now how is the political person here? Im full aware that on the current kurdification that have been occuring in northern iraq this last 2 decays, but never thougt that have gone to this extent.

And about the maronites , melkites. please stop reading pro arab books and come down to earth. If you arent aware of the arabification of the syriacs and other minoritys then you shouldnt even come near the articles about syriacs or kurds. because you have much to learn.

As I said before, good luck with wikipedia. And you guys will probably get it as you want. why not start to change it now, all to Assyria/Assyrian/Assyrians instead of syriacs and remove melkites, maronites and so on due to the reason that you seem to have such knowledge to make these changes. maby you can revert it to the time when the article said that syriacs are a syriac speaking group. And even if you will do that, the truth wont change, you are radicals and fanatics trying to make wikipedia a political tool for you amitions.

feel free to do so.

Michael 10:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Monsieur Lambert,

It's saddening that you continue to label people as "nationalists", "activists", and the like, without any reason.

There should be no room for this kind of degrading behaviour on Wikipedia. We ought to discuss by exchanging arguments rather than by engaging in personal attacks. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 12:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Failed Nation

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)

European Syriac Union

Please check out the Final Declaration of the foundation convention of the European Syriac Union, representing the following organisations:

Syrianska-Assyriska Riksförbundet i Sverige
Renyo Hiro Magazine (Sweden)
Union of the Syriac Associations in Switzerland
Union of the Assyrian-Syriac Associations in Germany
Bethnahrin Information Bureau in the Netherlands
Institut Mésopotamie de Bruxelles
Centre de Peuple de Mésopotamie
Assyrian-Syriac Culture Club of Vienna
Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac Union (ACSU)
Union of the Free Women of Bethnahrin (HNHB)
Union of the Youth of Mesopotamia (HCB)

--Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 18:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Benne, I dont know what you dont see. I am really trying hard not to inslut you, but are you blind? You can clearly see from what you have provided that the term "Syriac" is something that is used to POLITICALLY unit all of the Christians from Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon in despora. Syriac is not a ethnicity, stop trying to make it one all of the sudden. The term is almost never used in Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc. Chaldean 03:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Chaldean, I know you may feel frustrated at times, but Wikipedia has a no personal attacks policy. Try to stay calm. --Khoikhoi 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am trying by best, but I dont understand this guys motives. Do we need to always remind ourselfs what is Wikipedia? It is not a place to promote your interest. It is a place to just state what things are, and thats it. Chaldean 03:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I actually tried to stay away from wikipedia due to these resons, people are so tightend up and have no arguments but only slanders, they dont fit here in wikipedia. Again wikipedia is free encyclopedia that allows anyone to make an effort. Why get so angry. Debate and make arguments instead. For the syriac article, please chaldean what makes you believe that the political term assyrian or aramean or chaldean can be traced to an ethnic term (ancient assyrians/arameans/chaldeans)? is it becuse you can trace it back to a date before the group called them self suryoyo/suryoye?

the idea of an pure ethnicity that subdued other ethnicites that didnt change under several thousands of years and that the people only used on term example "Assyrian" or "Aramean" is not scientificly correct. Due to the fact that the usage of the terms assyrian or aramean or chaldean explicit as an ethnic term on themselves has not existed before 1800 [nationalism]. These modern attempts are nothing more then political attempts to create an illusion of a state with an attempt to connect themselves with a singel ethnic group . The term syriac/syrian(suryoyo) [without disscussing origin of the term] has been used by others and by the group itself for about 2400years.

I think that one can state that syriac/syrian(suryoyo) is an ethnic group, that have ethnic roots from the syro-mesopotamian plains with syro-mesopotamian culture.

and if you are thinking of claiming that syrian->assyrian, then you are partially wrong. because im talking about the term syrian/syriac(suryoyo) as a spoken word and with its attributes and values, not as a word that is originally derived from the word assyrian(with values, origins of assyrian idelology) and wich later was transformed to syrian.

anyhow, my main consern isnt the name issue but that the article is currently beeing disputed, wich again shows how my people isnt united and that we probably never have a free state of our own. but never give up the hope.

I hope that people understand that syriac/syrian isnt wrong but rather a unifying name from the maronites-melkites to the assyrians-chaldeans

best wishes,

Michael 00:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"I hope that people understand that syriac/syrian isnt wrong but rather a unifying name from the maronites-melkites to the assyrians-chaldeans " But you said Syriac is a ethnic group? I fully agree with what you just said; Syriac is used to unify the maronites/assyrians/chaldeans, but in diaspora. This term is not used in politics to unite any group, rather this new term of Chaldoassyrian, is what is used now in Iraq. Chaldean 01:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia doesnt favour political ideology. and please iraqi designation of assyriochaldean isnt accepted by the political groups. only by few organizations, but far from all of them. Im saying that syriac should be viewd as an ethnic designation and should be used in the politics due to that it is uniting and more political correct especcially in these days.

Michael 09:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your simply wrong. You are aware that Iraq has decided on its first census, for the ethnic section, it will have "Chaldoassyrians" right? Chaldean 01:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've devised a Romanized Assyrian Alphabet.

User_talk:Sargonious#I.27ve_devised_a_Romanized_Assyrian_Alphabet.

You could translate directly from Syriac script with ease.

eg. Marun Jšui Mšjxa mere:

O d'la etle xţjta maxe/patel kepa qamaja.

Sj maxa Catana!

Alahj, Alahj, La ma šabaqt anj?

Sargonious

Dispute

What's disputed?

Prove that majority calls themselves "Assyrians"!

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)

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 - [1] and [2] and [3]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)

please answers bennes question, prove that the suryoyo people calls themselves assyrians, what the iraqi suryoye call themsleves cannot be applied to the whole population. Actually that is the biggest problems with iraqis they have a very narrowed sight about the suryoyo people. and by you stating that 95% voted for assyrian party is a lie, we know that many of them support the kurds and voted for kurdish parties and and we also know that the so called "chaldeans" didnt even get to vote in northern iraq because of the kurds. It is wrong to think that assyrian ideology is based in iraq, the assyrianists consider as far as maronites as their people. [not nestorian assyrians but orthodox assyrians]. the problem with assyrians is that they arent united within, there are several political camps and many of the arent even working togeather, some of them work with the kurds agains their own people. And for you to answer benne correctly then you must have some sort of information about what the suryoyo people calles it self in syria, lebanon,turkey. And ofcourse in the diaspora. and again dont apply church denomition [syrian, chaldean,assyrian church] as a name for the whole people. Again I would appreciate if someone could give a solid answer and not just fictional replys.

best regards Michael 10:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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. [4] Chaldean 02:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

"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)

Garzo, it is true

"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)

I am Christian: am I Suraya? --Gareth Hughes 15:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Reason for revert

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Interesting. Oh, by the way, Sargonious/King Legit reverted my edit [5]. I reverted back. --Khoikhoi 04:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

For the time being, the Assyrian people article will be about all Neo-Aramaic-speaking people, and all other articles, including this, will be redirects to it. It is an impossible task to reach consensus with thesubject matter spread over several articles. We can suggest new names for this one article, but we'll keep it one article until then. This is going back to a redirect. — Gareth Hughes 11:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)