Talk:Syrian Jacobites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] MOVE

"Western Syriacs" or "Jacobites" appear to be the more neutral titles, while "Syriac-Aramaeans" appears to imply a certain ethnic nationalist pov, but I am not personally opposed to the move, since it seems, after all, to be a common self-designation of the group's. Wikipedia:Naming conventions apply, however, and the question is, which is the term most current in English language sources.

Find sources: Syriac-Aramaean – news, books, scholar
Find sources: Syriac-Aramaic – news, books, scholar
Find sources: Western Syriac – news, books, scholar
Find sources: Western Assyrians – news, books, scholar

neither of these terms appears to be terribly widespread, so I don't really have a preference. That the question of self-designation is controversial needs to be pointed out in any case. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The people are absolutly not known as "Western Syriacs" or "Jacobites". "Western Syriacs" is a term that Elias came up with. The term Syriacs is the real and only best term for the group but the term Syriac-Aramean is better because of there is people who call them selfs for syriacs but says that their is origin is assyrian. In syriac/aramaic/turoyo language there is two terms. Suryoye Oromoye translated = Syriac Arameans and the term Suryoye Othoroye translated = Syriac Assyrians. VegardNorman (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confused. Please read the Assyrian people article, especially the "Demographics" section. This article does not cover all Syriacs, but only the Jacobites. To the exclusion of the "Nestorians" and the "Chaldeans". The naming dispute is covered at Names of Syriac Christians. dab (𒁳) 13:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The rem Jacobites is not used anymore. and the term Weastern Asyrians/Syriacs is a term created by Elias VegardNorman (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I realize "Jacobites" is somewhat outdated. "Western Assyrians" is not a term invented by Elias[1], but it does appear rather rare. "Syriac-Aramaean", however, doesn't appear that common either.[2] dab (𒁳) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The correct term is if course "Western Syriacs", to say "Western Assyrians" is like saying "Western Arameans". I think normally you say that people from Turkey and Syria belongs to the Western Syriacs, and Iraq and Iran to Eastern Syriacs. However, Western Syriac is not the same as Syriac-Aramean. The two terms are not equal eachother. The TriZ (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Western Syriacs may also referr to syriacs/assyrians/chaldeans VegardNorman (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
no. That's just "Syriacs". Western Syriacs are those originating in Syria and speaking Turoyo. Syracs from Iraq, and Syriacs speaking other Aramaic dialects are not known as "Western". Some of them are indeed "Eastern". In my understanding, "Syriac-Aramaeans" are those Western Syriacs who subscribe to an "Aramaean" national myth. Which would make "Syriac-Aramaeans" the less inclusive and less neutral term than simple "Western Syriacs". dab (𒁳) 14:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Dab, your partically right. Western Syriacs can also refer to Chaldeans, Assyrians from Tur Abdin, Turkey. Turoyo's origins are from Turkey, not Syria. But this page even if titled Western Syriacs, can be ok. Just emphsize in the beginning of the page that this article talks about Syriacs who don't identify being Assyrian, but rather Aramean. Chaldean (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Syriac-Arameans doesn't have to be Western Syriacs, they can be Eastern to. Though if course most are Western. The TriZ (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No not really, no Syriac Orthodox/Catholic in Iraq call themselves Aramean. Chaldean (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, I didn't say they do, I said they don't necessarily need to be Western Syriacs. And there are most likely people in Iraq who identify themselfs as Syriac-Aramean. The TriZ (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

there are most likely people in Iraq who identify themselfs as Syriac-Aramean - when you say Syriac-Aramean, you mean one who identify themselves as Aramean, right? If so, then again, not one village or Syriac-speaking organization in Iraq or Iran identify themselves as Aramean. Chaldean (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this article should be redirected into article Syriac-Aramean people to avoid conflicts, and vandalizm from other users etc. VegardNorman (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, isn't the church a kind of organization? You can't say there are no Syriac-Arameans in Iraq, when there most likely are some. Not many, but probably a few. Point is, you don't have to be a Western Syriac to be a Syriac-Aramean. The TriZ (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

isn't the church a kind of organization? - yes and almost unamously all Syriac Ortho/Catholic church officals in Iraq don't identify with Aramean. I have discussed this issue heavely in the Assyrian people talk page; all Syriac-speakers in Iraq, be it Syriac Ortho/Catholic Chaldean ACOE, identify themselves as Suraya. Now I hope you guys are not assuming one who calls themselves Suraya, agrees on the Aramaea identity, because its not. My family considers themselves Surayes, and certanly we don't identify with Aramaea. you don't have to be a Western Syriac to be a Syriac-Aramean - Yes you do. I think it would be better to discuss this in a board, like the one I suggested, so that we don't have all these discussion in different pages. So lets stop for now, until I create a board. Chaldean (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Western syriacs may refer to western assyrians also. Syriacs-Chaldeans-Assyrians. Therefor there should be an article about the Syriacs (Syriac-Arameans) VegardNorman (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Population

I just wanted to add that there alot of Syriacs in belgium and holland to in Europe, and ifcourse alot in Turkey also. I don't have the number available but there are probably areound 50.000 in Holland and Belgium, and also I would guess 10.000+ in Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The TriZ (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent move

The title is very misleading and is confusing people. I thought the whole perpose of creating such a page was to talk about those who don't identify themselves as Assyrians. I strongly suggest the page to be moved to Syriac-Aramean people ASAP, before further confusion. Chaldean (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

is it? I thought it was about those who do not follow the Assyrian Church of the East, viz. the inadequately-named "Jacobites". It would be a grave mistake to divide people by their stance towards that naming dispute, since I imagine most people cannot be bothered to even have a position on that. "Are you an Aramaean or an Assyrian", what sort of question is that? The vast majority of Syriacs would reply to that, I hope, something along the lines "have you heard the Bronze Age is over?". This is about an ethnic or religious (sub-)group, not about smartassism in romantic nationalism. dab (𒁳) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is very unneccesary and i agree with Chaldean. The page should redirect to Syriac-Aramean people to avoid peeople getting confused. VegardNorman (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How about starting a central discussion to deal with all the articles related with the Sur(y)āye (Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldaeans, Syriacs)? This should, in my opinion, not be discussed on a page-to-page basis. I suggest Syriac Christianity work group for this, which used to be a project, but has been downgraded to a workgroup. However I believe Syriac Christianity deserves a project of its own. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

yes. the central article for this is Assyrian people. We should merge both Eastern Syriacs and Western Syriacs into that: we do not have sufficient sources that establish anything like a specific term for either of these groups. Religiously, there are "Jacobite" and "Nestorian" sects. This somehow overlaps with "Aramaean" vs. "Assyrian" identity in national mysticism, but it isn't clear exactly how. Discuss the "Nestorian" vs. "Jacobite" denomination at Syriac Christianity. Discuss the naming dispute at Names of Syriac Christians. Merge the articles on fuzzily defined "groups" into the main article on the ethnic group. Anything else is confusing, inadequately sourced, and invites edit wars. If "Assyrian people" isn't an acceptable term for the whole group, consider a move to Assyrian/Syriac people or similar. dab (𒁳) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
dab, i think the best solution is make a move to Assyrian/Syriac people, and remove the history part etc. This worked in swedish wikipedia. [3]. also the articles "western syriacs" and "eastern assyrians" in swedish wikipedia has been merged into the article Asssyrian/syriacs --- VegardNorman (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
this certainly seems to be the way to go at present. dab (𒁳) 20:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This doesn't do justice to the Aramaean faction. Suryāye (with its variations Surāye and Suryoye) is the only term in use among all the various subgroups. Other suggestions: Syriacs, or Aramaeans/Assyrians/Chaldaeans/Syriacs. This issue shouldn't be decided over night. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

i think that there should be an article for thsoe from the aramean faction and those for the assyrian faction.. then move articles "western" and "eastern" VegardNorman (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

True. Chaldaeans (who have a separate article Chaldean Christians now) can be discussed in the Chaldean Catholic Church article, since they all belong to that church. Common grounds can be discussed in Syriac Christianity, for religious matters, and Names of Syriac Christians (working title) when it comes to the naming dispute.

In the end, both Aramaeans and Assyrians are ethnic groups in the sense that they consider themselves to be, and carry their own flags. Perhaps we could use the German Wikipedia as an example, which has separate articles for de:Aramäer (Antike) and de:Aramäer (Gegenwart), and de:Assyrer vs. de:Assyrer (Gegenwart) --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And the example from german wikipedia is excellent. 91.126.59.25 (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that, creating articles about Arameans (Antique) and Arameans (Modern), and Assyrians (Antique) and Assyrians (Modern) like the german wikipedia would solve the whole problem. VegardNorman (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
the articles on de-wiki tend to be in a sad mess. It is not true that they "consider themselves separate", both factions claim the entire group as their own. Hence the German articles on "Aramaeans (Modern)" vs. "Assyrians (Modern)" are pov forks, pure and simple. Chaldean Christians are a separate case, since there the classification is actually one of a religious denomination. The "Eastern" and "Western" seems to largely correspond to the Nestorian vs. Jacobite denominations. The "Aramaean" vs. "Assyrian" thing only roughly corresponds to that. It's a more recent issue of ethnic nationalism. Let us be perfectly clear on whether we discuss Christian denominations, or positions of national mysticism. We can have articles on crackpot national mysticism of course, but we obviously should not let our articles on ethnic groups let be informed by this stuff. We'd need WP:RS delineating the groups first. Hint, the official US census rolled its administrative eyes at this and ended up calling the group "Syriac/Assyrian/Chaldean". I don't think we'll be able to do better. dab (𒁳) 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said they consider themselves to be separate, but they do consider themselves to be ethnic groups, which in fact overlap each other. They have their own organisations, and therefore deserve their own articles, provided there are enough sources. All we need to do is discuss the facts, whether they are nationalistically inspired or not. There are two articles that cover the various groups commonly, like I said, we don't need to force them all together into a single article. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Benne... VegardNorman (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab, your suggestion of moving the Assyrian people page to Assyrian/Syriac has been voted down twice now. I don't know how many times I have to say this, our ethnicity is NOT genotiable. It would be like asking people to move Armenian people page to Armenian/Hamshenis page. At what point do we stop and ask our selfs to use common sense? Chaldean (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

BenneChaldean, your allegation that we are "negotiating" your "ethnicity" shows that you have no idea what is in fact being debated. The debate is on English terminology per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Your own "ethnicity", whatever that is exactly, is not touched upon, and certainly not voted upon, by Wikipedia. Now can we merge these poorly sourced articles into the main one please? dab (𒁳) 08:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you meant Chaldean, not me ...
Let me stress once more that there is no need to rush, let's reach consensus first. Assyrian people can stay where it is, but should only refer to the people referring to themselves as Assyrians, per WP:NPOV. Keep statistics out of this discussion, please ... Google counts are not a way to solve this problem. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
google hit counts are an important tool to get a first impression of a term's prevalence. If the google count shows one term is outnumbering the other ten to one, the discussion should be over. If the ratio is less than, say, four to one, it will be necessary to differentiate which kinds of sources use what. I am fine with the title "Assyrian people", as long as the article makes clear that "Aramaean" and "Syriac" are alternative synonyms, not different groups. This article needs to be merged into the Assyrian people one, regardless of the title the latter will end up under. dab (𒁳) 08:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

am fine with the title "Assyrian people", as long as the article makes clear that "Aramaean" and "Syriac" are alternative synonyms, not different groups. No they are not synonyms, they are different groups. Arameans are not assyrians. And google hit counts are veryvery misleading. If you hit assyrian in google, they may refer to the ancient assyrians and todays assyrians. If you hit syrians, they may refer to the older name for the people today known as syriacs, and they also may refer to the members of arab republic syria. Syriac-arameans are not assyrians, they got their own flag, own history, own culture, tradition etc. The only thing in common is the genocide. VegardNorman (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

then why, pray, does the US census carry a group "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" and no gruop "Aramaean"? It's one group. This group has, of course, various sub-groups, such as the "Chaldean" one. If you want to argue that "Aramaeans" are yet another sub-group of the Syriac one, cite your sources. dab (𒁳) 14:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Beacuse of that Aramaean is the older name. The people known as aramaeans today are known as Syriacs. VegardNorman (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab, I still think you are not understanding some important core facts about this issue. The ones that call themselves Aramean, are basically declaring they are not as one with those who call themselves Assyrian. And both of these groups claim the title of Syriac. I understand what Benne is trying to propose, and I like that. But Benne, wasn't the page Syriac Christianity going to be just that? But unfortunatly nobody worked on it. I still think Syriac Christinaity would be the perfect page to unite all these different pages, and explain who all these groups are one. But in the same process, the Assyrian people page needs to be untouched, and having a Syriac-Aramean people page would be a good thing as well. Redirect everything else (Western Syriacs, etc.) Chaldean (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I Agree with Chaldean 100 %. VegardNorman (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Central discussion

Can we please have a thorough discussion on this matter, so we can perhaps find a workable solution? Let's not rush into new proposals, but take some time to think it over. I repeat my suggestion for a project or work force on this matter. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect/Merging

If there is no opposition, I would like to merge this page with Assyrian people, since Syriac-Aramean people page has now been created. Chaldean (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? The TriZ (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Because all these sub pages just makes the issue more confusing. We have way too many pages about a single group of people. Chaldean (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This page should redirect to "Syriac-Aramean people" and Eastern assyrians redirect to Assyrian people. what do you think Chaldean? VegardNorman (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move request discussion

The discussion as I read it was slightly in favor of the proposed move, but as an article has subsequently been created and edited at the destination by two of the main advocates, so I'm withdrawing the listing at WP:RM. You may wish to explored the possibilities at WP:MERGE. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] population box

ok, the infobox population estimate is based on adherents.com numbers for Syriac Orthodox plus Syriac Catholic. If "Western Syraics" is a more comprehensive term, I suppose we'll have to disambiguate. This article is ostensibly about the "Jacobite" group. dab (𒁳) 13:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Church itself rejects the title of Jacobite. Before creating these pages, I suggest you do a little more research. Chaldean (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)