Talk:Arameans

Hey this is just a question, but as we all know Arameans clearly dont exist today.

So i was thinking maybe i could a part of where they went extinct? Assyrianmaps (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Any professor and any linguist in the world confirms that Arameans exist and that Syriac Christians: Syriacs, Melkites, Nestorians, Chaldeans are literally Arameans. Open any book! 2A02:A420:578:67E7:186C:D49B:195A:B49F (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

People who push Assyrian POV like you and @Shmayo should not edit this page since you only try to erase or confuse people about Arameans. Your only goal is to push an ‘Assyrian’ view/identity on Aramean/Syriac Christians! You don’t stand for the truth you are biased 2A02:A420:578:67E7:186C:D49B:195A:B49F (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Arameans are still alive. By reading Syriac literature, which is the most relevant to the topic of Arameans, you'd read that the Arameans are very alive and have preserved their culture, language and religion. User623921 (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

We still exist. My raw dna confirms my Aramean heritage so what are you talking about? Do you want more proof then our raw dna?? 2A02:A45F:ADD7:1:F961:71CE:382C:A8A (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2024

It says Arameans were. But still today Arameans are alive and still exist! It realy hurts us seeing this written considering the many genocides on our people. Can you please edit it to say are instead of were. Thank you! 92.109.209.55 (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Skitash (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

all the scources can be found on this dutch wikepedia page. https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramee%C3%ABrs 92.109.209.55 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Arameans dont exist today, i have alot of sources to confirm that today those who call themselves “Arameans” today are separatists 2A00:1598:5000:3C01:5112:FC65:A201:A83B (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Lies like these can only come from an Assyrianists. Sources? What a joke! Any professor or scholar writes that Syriac Christians are Arameans. Nestorians, Melkites, Syriacs, Chaldeans are of Aramean origin. Read any book about Syriac Christians by professors! 2A02:A420:578:67E7:186C:D49B:195A:B49F (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2024

As a result of migratory processes, various Aramean groups were settled throughout the Ancient Near East, and their presence is recorded in the regions of Assyria,[49] Babylonia,[50] Anatolia,[51] Phoenicia,[52] Palestine,[53] Egypt[54] and Northern Arabia.[55]. Change "Palestine" to "Israel" or to "Kingdom of Israel" or to "Kingdoms of Israel and Judea" Justification: as this paragraph relates to a pre-Hellenization period, before Roman rule, that region wasn't named Palestine yet. The name "Syria-Palestina" was a denomination the Romans gave it after the destruction of the Second Temple and rainsacking of Jerusalem following the Bar Kokhba revolt (along with several other Israelite uprisings). As this event only happened in the 1st century AD, it would be incorrect to refer to this Levantine region as "Palestine" during the time discussed in this particular paragraph. 2804:18:185D:233C:1:0:F2E8:ED04 (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: We should stick to what the source says. Skitash (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I just gave sources that say the name of the region wasn't Palestine up until the 1st century AD. Shouldn't we be accurate in the terms we use? 2804:18:185D:233C:1:0:F2E8:ED04 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Arameans are still living today

Separatists or not, there is a considerable number of people that consider themselves as Arameans. This ethnic denomination is even recognized by the State of Israel in the population census to describe ethnic minorities whitin the country. The same goes for Assyrians, Druze and others. We must respect the right for self-determination to all the peoples, including the ones that dont possess a National State, such as the Kurds, Yazidis, Catalans, etc. 2804:18:185D:233C:1:0:F2E8:ED04 (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

As long as user @Shmayo keeps reverting or changing any positive edit about this page it is impossible to enrich this article!! 2A02:A420:578:67E7:186C:D49B:195A:B49F (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Syriac Christians are Arameans. Any source confirms it. I can add 1000 reliable sources which confirm that Syriacs are Arameans. Anything written about Arameans by ‘Assyrian’ individuals who push the Assyrian POV is not reliable and contains lies or manipulations. 2A02:A420:578:67E7:186C:D49B:195A:B49F (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2024

As a result of migratory processes, various Aramean groups were settled throughout the Ancient Near East, and their presence is recorded in the regions of Assyria,[49] Babylonia,[50] Anatolia,[51] Phoenicia,[52] Palestine,[53] Egypt[54] and Northern Arabia.[55]. Change "Palestine" to "Israel" or to "Kingdom of Israel" or to "Kingdoms of Israel and Judea" Change "Palestine" to "Israel" or to "Kingdom of Israel" or to "Kingdoms of Israel and Judea" Justification: as this paragraph relates to a pre-Hellenization period, before Roman rule, that region wasn't named Palestine yet. The name "Syria-Palestina" was a denomination the Romans gave it after the destruction of the Second Temple and rainsacking of Jerusalem following the Bar Kokhba revolt (along with several other Israelite uprisings). As this event only happened in the 1st century AD, it would be incorrect to refer to this Levantine region as "Palestine" during the time discussed in this particular paragraph. 2804:18:185D:233C:1:0:F2E8:ED04 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: In the English language, Palestine best describes this geographic region in the Southern Levant. We do not use religiously affiliated language when referring to geographic places, facts take precedence, as indicated by WP RS. The comment you also made above is also factually incorrect, Druze are most certainly Arabs by any and all metric. JJNito197 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Shmayo’s pushing POV

POV been the case for a long time. User @Shmayo is again cutting off parts of the Arameans page. What can we do about this? 2A02:A420:26B:9AD9:1C60:80D6:393D:E16A (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Shmayo pushing POV !!!

User @Shmayo pushes constantly his POV on this article. It is impossible to enrich this article. Shmayo keeps manipulating and deleting anything that shows something positive about this page!! 2A02:A420:578:67E7:186C:D49B:195A:B49F (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Arameans do exist today! Stop denying our existence. We have self-identified ourselves as Arameans since the fourth century! I therefore suggest this article to include that the modern Arameans are alive and not only speak of us of ancient times. Allow me to present some sayings by our people, which advocates an existing Aramean identity:

"But the Philosopher of the Arameans (i.e. Bardaisan) made himself a laughing-stock among Arameans and Greeks" (S.Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Transcribed from the Palimpsest B.M. Add. 14623 by the late C. W. MITCHELL, M.A., C.F., volume 2 (1921) pp.7)

"He who became a crown for the entire Arameandom, (and) by him we have been brought close to spiritual beauty;" (Ed. Joseph Amar, A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Serugh, Patrologia Orientalis 47,1, p. 155)

"It is in this way we the Arameans, that is to say Syriacs [...]" (Maurice Brière, Les Homiliae Cathedrales de Sévère d'Antioche Traduction Syriaque de Jacques d'Edesse (Suite) Homelies CXX A CXXV in F. Graffin, Patrologia Orientalis Tome XXIX-Fasicule 1, p. 196)

Saint Jacob of Urhoy/Edessa († 708), one of the most prolific writers of syriac literature, born at the village of Ayndaba in the district of Gumyah, in the province of Antioch about 633.

He says in his book "The Six Days":

"It appears that the south was so named also by us Arameans. But as for the north, it is not known to us why it was called (such) by the ancient sons of Aram." (Schtoth Yaume: Hexaemeron, Die Schöpfungslehre des Jakob von Edessa (+708). Nach der Estrangelo Handschrift, die 839 n. Chr. geschrieben wurde; abgeschrieben von Erzbischof J.J. Cicek, Verlag Bar Hebräus, Losser-Holland 1985, p. 60)

There is so much more, I had to keep it short. Besides a evident continuity of Arameans, the term Syrian (Syriac) was only applied to the Assyrians prior to the Greeks specifying this term to only the Arameans, it derives from the Greek word 'Σύριοι', looking at Syriac literature, we will see that Syriac was equated to Aramean only. Eventually the Arameans adopted this term to themselves, the Arameans were the only ones to do so. This is evident in the works of Theodor Nöldeke, Mor Michael Rabo and Mor Dionysius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User623921 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024

Introduction

The Arameans, an ancient Semitic people, remain a distinct community today, despite challenges to their identity and recognition. This proposal outlines the evidence for the ongoing existence of the Arameans and advocates for efforts to preserve and support their unique cultural, linguistic, and religious heritage.

Evidence of Continued Existence

Language and Heritage

Modern Aramaic dialects, such as Classical Syriac and Turoyo, are still spoken by communities primarily associated with Syriac Christian traditions. These dialects, derived from ancient Aramaic, provide a direct linguistic link to the Arameans of antiquity.

Cultural Identity

Aramean communities maintain a rich cultural heritage, including traditional music, dance, and religious practices. These traditions are passed down through generations, serving as a living testament to their enduring identity.

Religious Communities

Many Arameans belong to Syriac Christian denominations, including the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Syriac Catholic Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. These religious institutions use Aramaic in liturgical settings, preserving the language and reinforcing Aramean cultural identity.

Self-Identification

A significant number of people in the Middle East and the global diaspora explicitly identify as Arameans. In some countries, such as Israel, governments have officially recognized Arameans as a distinct ethnic group, affirming their identity.

Diaspora and Preservation Efforts

Due to displacement and migration, many Arameans have established communities in Europe, North America, and Australia. These diaspora communities actively preserve their identity through cultural organizations, religious institutions, and language programs.

I will now provide some sources from history that testify to the continuity of the Aramean identity.

Saint Jakob of Serugh, born around 451 AD, testifies to an Aramean identity. He writes: “the Church, daughter of the Arameans.” (Ming 480, f. 303r, Copied: 1713 AD in Mardin).

https://web.facebook.com/profile/1256491957/search/?q=bath%20oromoye

Saint Severus of Antioch, born around 465 AD, testifies to an Aramean identity. He writes: "It is in this way we the Arameans, that is to say Syriacs [...]."

https://archive.org/details/leshomiliaecathe0000seve/page/196/mode/2up

Sarkis Bahira, estimated to have lived in the 6th or 7th century, writes: “Land of the Arameans.”

https://web.facebook.com/profile/1256491957/search/?q=sarkis%20bahira

Saint Michael the Great, born in 1126, wrote: “The kingdoms which have been established in antiquity by our race, (that of) the Arameans, namely the descendants of Aram, who were called Syriacs.” Note that he says “our race,” indicating he was part of that race, namely the Arameans.

https://archive.org/details/chroniquedemiche04mich/page/748/mode/2up

Bar Salibi, born in the 12th century, writes: “The Armenians say: ‘From whom do you descend—you who are Syrians by race?’ Against them, we will say: Neither do you know from whom you descend. The name ‘Armenian’ is derived from ‘Armenia,’ which is the name of a country (and not of a person). It is we (Syrians) who have enlightened your authors and revealed to them that you are descending from Togarma, who was from the children of Japhet. As to us Syrians, we descend racially from Shem, and our father is Kemuel, son of Aram, and from this name of Aram, we are also called sometimes in the Books by the name of ‘Arameans.’”

https://dokumen.pub/qdownload/the-work-of-dionysius-barsalbi-against-the-armenians-woodbrooke-studies-4-9781463214241.html

For more sources on the continuity and existence of our identity, please refer to https://aramean-dem.org/English/History/Evidences_of_our_Aramean_origin/Evidences_of_our_Aramean_origin.htm and see the extensive documentation available there. I could list many other sources, but let’s look at more modern ones. Is the identity that was testified millennia ago still amongst us? Here it is said that the Arameans must also be included. Chaldeans and Assyrians already are, but not the Arameans (2016).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kEPRek0gTM

Our current Patriarch says: “Our ancestors, the Arameans.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXXPY0XSYG0

Here is our current Patriarch with other Clergymen of our Church, together singing about Arameandom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXVc70PWmEM

Our previous Patriarch, His Holiness Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, said: “The Syriac language is the Aramaic language itself, and the Arameans are the Syrians themselves. Whoever has made a distinction between them has erred.”

https://ia802806.us.archive.org/8/items/syrianorthodoxch0000mari/syrianorthodoxch0000mari.pdf

This is just a few of many documentations of our Aramean identity still being alive and preserved. We’ve also got multiple Aramean organizations. In Sweden, there are SAAF, SAUF, and Syrianska Riksförbundet. We’ve also got the World Council of Arameans, previously known as the Syriac Universal Alliance, an international non-government umbrella organization whose membership consists of several national associations representing Arameans from various countries around the world. We’ve also got Suryoyo Sat, an Aramaic-language TV channel broadcasting from Södertälje, Sweden. We’ve also got numerous other organizations in Germany, the Netherlands, and other countries.

Conclusion

The Arameans are a living people with a rich cultural and linguistic heritage that continues to contribute to global diversity. Recognizing their existence and addressing the challenges they face are essential steps in preserving this unique identity for future generations. This proposal calls for collaborative efforts among Aramean communities, scholars, and policymakers to ensure the survival and flourishing of the Aramean people in the modern era.

Proposal

What I am proposing is an edit request to update this Wikipedia page so that it reflects the true identity of the Arameans and does not erase us from history. We are alive—do not deny our existence. Please do not write in a manner that suggests the Arameans were merely an ancient people who no longer exist. Allow me to edit the page freely, under the supervision of administrators, to include sources and demonstrate the true continuity of our people. User623921 (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC) User623921 (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC) User623921 (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2024

To follow up on the rejection of my previous edit request, my proposal is to shift the focus from the past to the present. We should stop referring to the Arameans as if they are no longer extant. When discussing the historical Arameans in the 'History' section, please specify them as 'ancient Arameans.' Move the current 'top' section to the 'History' section, and instead, we should include the following in the 'top' section:

The Arameans are an indigenous ethnic group native to the Near East, with their most prominent historical and cultural presence in southeastern Turkey, particularly in the region of Tur Abdin. Modern Arameans trace their cultural and historical lineage to the ancient Arameans, a Semitic people who originated in the Levant and rose to prominence during the first millennium BCE. The Arameans played a significant role in shaping the linguistic, cultural, and religious heritage of the Near East and Mesopotamia, particularly through the spread of the Aramaic language.[1][2]

Today, modern Arameans primarily identify with Christian communities, including the Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, and Maronite churches.[3][4]

Language and Cultural Legacy

The Aramaic language, introduced by the ancient Arameans, became the lingua franca of the Near East during the first millennium BCE and maintained its significance under various empires, including the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Empires. Today, Neo-Aramaic dialects, such as Turoyo, are spoken by Aramean communities, particularly in southeastern Turkey, northeastern Syria, and the diaspora. These dialects represent some of the oldest continuously spoken languages, with a rich literary and liturgical tradition still used in Christian rites.[5][6][7]

Aramaic has also influenced other languages, including Hebrew and Arabic, and played a pivotal role in cultural and religious exchanges in the ancient world. Its historical significance is highlighted by its use as the language spoken by Jesus, cementing its importance within Christian heritage.[8][9]

Religious Identity

The modern Arameans are predominantly Christian, adhering to denominations that use Classical Syriac as a liturgical language. These include the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Syriac Catholic Church, and, to some extent, the Maronite Church. The Arameans were among the earliest groups to embrace Christianity, alongside Assyrians, Greeks, Armenians, and Nabataeans. Christianity remains a core aspect of Aramean identity and has profoundly shaped their cultural preservation over centuries.[10][11]

Geographic Distribution and Modern Diaspora

The traditional homeland of the Arameans includes parts of modern-day southeastern Turkey (notably Tur Abdin), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Within Turkey, the monasteries and villages of Tur Abdin remain a vital center of Aramean cultural and religious life. Political instability, civil wars, and regional conflicts have forced many Arameans to migrate. Today, large diaspora communities exist in Europe, particularly in Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands, as well as in North America and Australia.[12][13]

Despite these challenges, Arameans have remained active in preserving their identity, culture, and language. Neo-Aramaic language education, religious practices, and cultural advocacy are central to their efforts in maintaining their heritage in both their traditional homelands and diaspora.[14][15]

Historical Challenges and Modern Advocacy

Aramean communities have faced numerous challenges throughout history, including forced displacement, assimilation pressures, and cultural erasure. During the early 20th century, the Sayfo genocide (1915–1917) led to the mass killing and displacement of Arameans, alongside other Christian minorities, during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.[16][17]

More recently, the rise of extremist groups in Syria and Iraq, such as ISIS, has threatened the survival of Aramean communities in their traditional homelands. These groups have targeted Arameans and other minorities, leading to further displacement and endangerment of their cultural heritage.[18][19]

In response, Aramean advocacy organizations have worked to preserve their language, culture, and history. This includes efforts to gain recognition as a distinct ethnic group in countries such as Sweden and Israel, where significant Aramean communities exist. Additionally, restoration of historical monuments, documentation of their cultural practices, and promotion of Neo-Aramaic education are integral to these preservation efforts.[20][21]

---

References

1. Lipiński, Edward. *The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion*. Peeters Publishers, 2000. 2. Younger, K. Lawson. *A Political History of the Arameans: From Their Origins to the End of Their Polities*. SBL Press, 2016. 3. Frye, Richard N. "The Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period." *Journal of Near Eastern Studies*. 4. Butcher, Kevin. *Roman Syria and the Near East*. Getty Publications, 2003. 5. Brock, Sebastian P. "An Overview of Syriac Literature." *Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies*. 6. Heinrichs, Wolfhart. *Studies in Neo-Aramaic Dialects*. Harrassowitz Verlag, 2000. 7. Beyer, Klaus. *The Aramaic Language: Its Distribution and Subdivisions*. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. 8. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. *A Guide to the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls*. SBL Press, 1995. 9. Millar, Fergus. *The Roman Near East: 31 BC–AD 337*. Harvard University Press, 1993. 10. Griffith, Sidney H. *The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque*. Princeton University Press, 2008. 11. Segal, Judah B. *The Aramaic Texts in Historical Perspective*. Oxford University Press, 1970. 12. Hitti, Philip K. *History of Syria: Including Lebanon and Palestine*. Macmillan, 1951. 13. Gaunt, David. *Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim-Christian Relations in Eastern Anatolia during World War I*. Gorgias Press, 2006. 14. Travis, Hannibal. "The Assyrian Genocide: Cultural and Political Legacies." *Genocide Studies International*. 15. BetBasoo, Peter. "Modern Arameans: History and Culture." *Aramean Voice*. 16. "The Arameans of Syria: A Cultural History." *Journal of Semitic Studies*. 17. Al-Maqdisi, Muhammad. "Ethnic and Religious Minorities in the Middle East." *Contemporary Review of the Middle East*. 18. United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Rights. 19. Aramean Organizations of Europe: Reports on Aramean Identity and Advocacy.

In my previous edit request, I submitted a few of the many sources suggesting an Aramean continuity and affirming that the Arameans are still extant. User623921 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: I suggest you propose incremental changes, one sentence at a time, to give the reviewers a chance to assess them without spending too much time on them. M.Bitton (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Ultraodan (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Makeover

As seen in this Talk page, the Arameans claim descent from the ancient Arameans, they are also recognized as a ethnic people in Israel. I am therefore suggesting a makeover of this page to reflect the modern Arameans, claiming descent from the ancient ones. They have representatives all over the diaspora, that is in Germany, Netherlands, Sweden etc.

They have people in the Swedish Parliament advocating for a recognition of them being a indigenous people of Turkey, they have also presented at the United Nations etc.

Clearly, the modern Arameans do not wish to be written of as a extinct people, nor do they wish to merely have a short part in Terms for Syriac Christians, that is not even covering their history.

I am willing to make a sandbox of this article, addressing the issues raised, stating "references such as these to an Aramean ethnic and linguistic identity are scarce after the Middle Ages."

I would love to hear you guys' opinion on this. User623921 (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose this suggestion. I suggest that you look into older (archived) talk pages and discussion. We should avoid creating forks. This has been done earlier and has now been redirected. This article deals with the ancient groups of Arameans, while the modern group is described here. Just as this article deals with the ancient Assyrians, while the modern group is described in the same aforementioned article. Shmayo (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

That's the thing, modern Arameans are not to be described as Assyrians per the group themselves, their representatives, their organizations and per the recognition of them in Israel. There is already a page about modern Arameans in Israel, but not a Arameans page. User623921 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Modern self-identifying Syriac-Arameans are a part of the same ethnic group, right? Political organization and local decisions does not change that fact. I am pretty sure individual Assyrians/Syriacs/Chaldeans/Arameans/etc. have different opinions on who their "representatives" are. That is irrelevant anyway. What you are suggesting will only create more complexity and edit warring, and is a fork anyway. Take a look at some older discussions on this particular subject. Shmayo (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Why is that only Assyrians can have their own article? Nobody has said anything about a fork, we could create a new article for Arameans.

Arameans are legally recognized as a ethnic group in Israel, that is not Assyrian!

There is of course also studies suggesting that modern Assyrians are not descendants of the ancient ones but are Arameans. You will never get a answer that is aligned with your beliefs.

A Aramean page that talks about the modern Arameans would be optimal, we could of course mention the name conflict, but there should be room for injustice where Arameans are not represented accordingly with their continuity in the middle ages in Syriac literature as well as Western literature. User623921 (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Objection to @Shmayo statement. The term Arameans gives 25 hits in the search field for ’words' in the Assyrian article. 2 times in the introduction; 2 times in the category 'Early Christian period’; 3 times under the category ’Language’; two times under the category Assyrian vs. Syrian naming controversy’’. 6 times under the category ’Self- designation’, the rest are in the footnotes. That's it. Thats litterly the only times Arameans are mentioned. So your statement that the modern group of Arameans are described in the Assyrian people is false. Big chunks of the article lacks sources to its claims, already visible in the introduction, third paragraph.

Opposed to the Assyrian article introduction, scholars already confirms the disappearance of the ancient Assyrians (W. Heinrichs, G. Smith, H.W.F. Saggs, S. Smith, S.Brock, A.J Toynbee, J. Joseph, G. Roux, H. J. Muller, J. P. McKay)

Modern scholars also highlight the re-invention of the Assyrian identity and/or the designation of the Assyrian name to the formerly called ’’Nestorians,’’ such as: S. Brock, A.M Butts, J. Joseph, W. Heinrics, J.M Fiey, J. F. Coakley, A. Grant, A. J. Maclean & W.H Brown, W. A. Wigram, A. H. Becker, A. Fortescue, M. Levene, O. Jastrow. A. R. Vine, C. Chaillot, D. Wilmshurst, M. Wozniak-Bobinska, D. Gaunt. 2A02:AA1:1155:FC18:9944:9162:7DB0:36F3 (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

What is your point with the number of hits?

Modern scholarship reject the "612 BC destruction of Assyria and Assyrians", but how is that relevant here? Shmayo (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Modern scholarship also advocate the destruction of Assyria and Assyrians, you'll have to see it from a non-biased perspective.

I think the point raised is that the Arameans are not written of in the Assyrian article other than a sub-identity of the Assyrians, which is legally inaccurate, per Israelite government.

Arameans are not be written of as Assyrians, that's the point. They do not align themselves with anything Assyrian, hence their name, Aramean. User623921 (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

SUPPORT - I think it is a great idea to create a page for the modern Arameans. Arameans (also called Syriacs) have never called theirselves ‘Assyrians’ in their native Aramaic speech. Why is it not allowed by @Shmayo for over 10 years to have a page about the modern Arameans? 2A02:A420:230:B950:A5AE:11B4:1226:4D2C (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I also saw that you chob-off sourced information about Arameans on different pages on wikipedia where Arameans/Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans are mentioned.. 2A02:A420:230:B950:A5AE:11B4:1226:4D2C (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Strongly support this suggestion, the debate over a separate Wikipedia page for modern Arameans has been ongoing for decades (looking at the discussion page), but it has faced opposition from some Assyrian groups who claim that this modern community is actually of Assyrian descent. However, after all these years and suggestions after suggestions, a fair and lasting solution must be reached. The Arameans have developed their own separate identity, complete with their own flag, traditions, cultural expressions, and organizations that explicitly distance themselves from other designations. This clearly demonstrates that they are not simply a subgroup of another people but a distinct ethnic group in their own right.

Furthermore, their recognition as an ethnic group in Israel, their political advocacy in European parliaments, their efforts at the United Nations, and their campaign for recognition as an indigenous people of Turkey all highlight the importance of their modern identity. A dedicated Wikipedia page for the modern Arameans is therefore not only justified but necessary to accurately represent their history, culture, and contemporary existence. Kivercik (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. This has already been a point of contention for many years on Wikipedia and resolved a long time ago, and creating an article specifically for Aramean identifying Suraye while having mostly the same (if not the exact same) content as Assyrian people would just be a content fork. This article talks about the legacy of the Arameans as a modern identifier, and what is considered modern Aramean history is represented by Assyrian pages. What an association says is the best representation of certain terms or labels is not indicative of the majority, especially because almost all who identify as Aramean are exclusively Syriac Orthodox.

Many attempts by accounts that were banned years ago were made to push an Aramean POV and it was just a huge mess. Given that the original poster has also been accused of meatpuppetry recently, as well as there being Swedish and Dutch IP addresses stating their support out of nowhere, mentioning something about there being people making an Aramean WikiProject and template when that hasn't yet been seen, etc., I'm wondering if there may be some level of canvassing going on. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The accusation got dismissed, so what is your point? Shmayo has also been accused of pushing POV numerous of times. A WikiProject is of no suspicion, it's a structured collaboration. There are lots of Arameans in the diaspora, for two people to come in and show support is not something that should be surprising.

Arameans are not presented in the Assyrian page, if it was, this would not be of question.

Like I said to Shmayo, I will say to you-I propose two things: either the Aramean article should be written about as a modern, existing group, or the Assyrian article should include an extensive section about Arameans, just as it is written about Assyrians, and the article should be renamed Aramean/Assyrian. User623921 (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The accusation being dismissed doesn't mean that it still isn't suspicious in relation to everything. Anyways, changing this article or the article for Assyrian people, or creating an entirely new article achieves nothing and will just fuel more edit-warring and disputes.

If there has already been a lot of dispute about this previously, and it has never succeeded, it probably means that modern Arameans have origins that are Assyrian and they're no different than Assyrians besides trivial factors. Many from Tur Abdin and Syria who are Syriac Orthodox identify as Assyrian and they're no different than Arameans, so there's no need to create separate articles. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

We can request edit protection on it. At the end of the day, Arameans are not recognized as a distinct identity or ethnicity but are instead classified as a subgroup of Assyrians—an affiliation rejected by the people themselves, the Israeli government, and the political parties representing the Arameans.

Many individuals from Iraq who identify as Suraye adopt the label Aramäer when they arrive in Germany, undermining the argument that Aramean identity lacks recognition. Moreover, it is evident that the vast majority of people from Tur Abdin and Syria who migrate to the diaspora identify as either Syrianer or Arameans.

Numerous attempts have been made to modify this article, but they have consistently been rejected by the same group of individuals. There is a clear need for two separate articles, as Arameans are not adequately represented in any existing entry. User623921 (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The modern Arameans and modern Assyrians have each developed in their own way over the past decades, with distinct cultural, traditional, and historical identities. This is evident in the existence of separate pages such as Arameans in Israel and Assyrians in Israel, which reflect these differences.

It is true that in the past, attempts were made to create a dedicated page for modern Arameans, and contrary to claims of it being a content fork, the proposed page did not resemble the Assyrian people page at all, see [[1]]. The Arameans who identify as such have their own unique history, traditions, and cultural development, separate from those who identify as Assyrians. While it is acknowledged that previous efforts faced challenges due to disputes and certain accounts pushing a particular POV, this should not be used as a reason to dismiss the distinct identity of modern Arameans, which not only Syriac Orthodox identify with, but also Syriac Catholics, Syriac Maronites and others. Therefore, I propose that the Arameans have their own page, and that in other articles, the group can be referred to as 'Arameans/Assyrians' if necessary, in order to put an end to the decades of edit wars once and for all. Kivercik (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "justice". Why would we have separate articles for the same ethnic group? You will not find modern scholars claiming that these are separate ethnic groups. The "organizations" and "representatives" that you are referring to also claim that this is the same group (obviously, under alternative names), which is ironic. Shmayo (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but why should there only be one for Assyrians? Change the name of the article to Arameans/Assyrians, include both flags, and cover the history, culture, and origin of both groups. These organizations that represent us in the United Nations, etc., claim a different descent than Assyrians.

You have done this for decades, consistently denying Arameans a presence on Wikipedia, and have been criticized multiple times for it.

I propose two things: either the Aramean article should be written about as a modern, existing group, or the Assyrian article should include an extensive section about Arameans, just as it is written about Assyrians, and the article should be renamed Aramean/Assyrian. User623921 (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This indeed isn’t about "justice" but about accurately representing historical, cultural, and linguistic distinctions within broader ethnic groups. Wikipedia frequently has separate articles for subgroups within an ethnicity when there are significant differences in history, language, identity, or self-perception.

1. Even IF (which is discussable and no consensus on), modern scholars consider them, Arameans to be part of the same broader ethnic group of the Assyrians, subgroups like the Hemshin people for example are in the root the same ethnic group as Armenians have distinct historical experiences, dialects, and cultural developments that warrant a separate article. The same reasoning applies to distinctions between for example Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews.
2. While organizations may use different names (Assyrian, Syriac-Aramean, Chaldean) for the same group, this does not mean the subgroups are identical in culture or history. Many ethnic communities have regional or historical subgroups with unique characteristics, and Wikipedia reflects that complexity.
3. There are many examples of ethnic groups having multiple articles for subgroups, such as Zazas who are seen as the same ethnic group as Kurds, however a distinct dialect, history, culture which makes it necessary to have an own distinct page, or for example the Romani people who have the Sinti and Kalderash as subgroups or the Tatars who have a seperate page for Crimean Tatars and Volga Tatars for example. This structure just helps provide clearer and more detailed information rather than forcing everything into a single article, which is the case with the Assyrian people page.
4. Also Wikipedia is meant to be an informative and accessible resource. Merging all related subgroups into a single article would make it harder for readers to find specific and relevant information. Instead, separate articles allow for more in-depth exploration of historical and cultural nuances.

Ultimately, the existence of separate articles does not imply that these are wholly separate ethnic groups, but rather that their unique histories, languages, and identities justify a dedicated space for discussion. Kivercik (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a separate article for terms and identitetes involving this group. Other than that, there is nothing remotely similar to the examples above. There is nothing that distinguish an "Assyrian" from Tur Abdin and an "Aramean" from Tur Abdin, other than terms used in Western languages. There are no unique "histories" or "languages". Shmayo (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong. Someone from Tur Abdin claiming an Assyrian history and someone from Tur Abdin claiming an Aramean history have significant differences. Their historical narratives alone set them apart. Those from Tur Abdin do not even acknowledge an Assyrian identity, and most who have entered the diaspora identify as Arameans.

You keep insisting that there is an article discussing the Aramean identity, but it only mentions it briefly in a few sentences. There is no in-depth coverage of their origins, history, literature, or continuity. User623921 (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Those are your personal opinions. Shmayo (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that Aramean and Assyrian history are the same? The same ancient establishments, battles, progression, and continuity? Those from Tur Abdin are recognized and known as Süryani, which is Syriac, not Asuri; see this.

The Syriac Orthodox community of Turkey recognizes an Aramean identity; see this.

For a documentary done in Tur Abdin and published two months ago, please see this. User623921 (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Your argument oversimplifies the reality of historical and cultural identities, and in doing so, you dismiss the very reason why Wikipedia maintains separate pages for distinct subgroups within broader ethnic categories. Your claim that there is no distinction between an "Assyrian" from Tur Abdin and an "Aramean" from Tur Abdin, apart from terminology used in Western languages, is simply incorrect.

1. First of all you suggest that the only difference between these groups is how Western languages label them. This completely disregards the fact that many people within the community itself explicitly identify as Arameans, not Assyrians. Identity is not something that outsiders dictate; it is how a group perceives itself based on its historical and cultural experiences. There are individuals and organizations who strongly emphasize their Aramean heritage.
2. Secondly your stance contradicts how Wikipedia handles other ethnic groups. There are separate pages for Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, Zazas and Kurds, Crimean and Volga Tatars, and many other subgroups within larger ethnic categories. Why? Because these subgroups have distinct historical developments, dialects, cultural traditions, and identities. The same applies to the Arameans. If we follow your logic, should we erase all those distinctions and force every subgroup into a single article? That would be a massive loss of historical and cultural nuance.
3. You claim that there are no unique histories or languages that distinguish Arameans from Assyrians. This is demonstrably false. While both groups share Aramaic as a linguistic foundation, there are dialectal variations, liturgical differences, and distinct cultural expressions shaped by historical factors. The Aramean identity has been preserved separately by various religious and cultural institutions, and this alone warrants proper representation.
4. And once again Wikipedia exists to provide detailed and accessible information. By forcing everything into the Assyrian people page, you make it harder for readers to find specific, relevant information about the Arameans. A separate page does not mean claiming they are a completely separate ethnicity, but it allows for a clearer and deeper exploration of their history, identity, and cultural nuances.

For your information, Wikipedia's goal is to inform, not to merge different identities into a single, oversimplified narrative. If Zazas, Sephardic Jews, and Crimean Tatars deserve their own pages, then so do the Arameans. Kivercik (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The suspicious part to me is that it is always people who push an ‘Assyrian’ identity that are against developing pages about Arameans. No one in this world doubts an Aramean/Syriac identity beside those who identify as ‘Assyrians’. I even see it as unfair that biased writers are allowed to have an ‘opinion’ about this since we already know that they do everything about it to make it look like Arameans don’t exist. You are both not neutral and pushing POV. @Shmayo and @Surayeproject3 2A02:A420:276:3CA8:AD08:C33B:7F4F:8274 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Look, you need to cite reliable sources, a wall of text with irrelevant analogies is not leading to any progress. Example: My claim above was that the Syriac Orthodox part (i.e. with self-label Sur(y)oye, usually from Tur Abdin or Northern Syria) do either identify as Syriac, Assyrian and/or Aramean, or any combination of these, but are obviously part of the same people, with the difference being how the community should identify itself in Western languages (not what you stated above). Source: Romeny, 2011, "Ethnicity, Ethnogenesis, and the Identity of Syriac Orthodox Christians", p. 13, citing: "Within today’s community in the Diaspora a discussion is going on about the question of whether the Syriac Orthodox should identify themselves with the Assyrians or the Arameans". Do you understand how this should be done? Shmayo (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Most Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic Christians along with many Rum Orthodox and Rum Catholic Christians identify as Arameans. Majority of writers within these churches wrote about their Aramean origin. What exactly do you need to proof this? Do you want us to provide sources? @Shmayo 2A02:A420:276:3CA8:AD08:C33B:7F4F:8274 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I am in agreement with @Shmayo. As far as I've seen, there is little to no proof that people who espouse an Aramean identity from Tur Abdin and northeastern Syria are ethnically different from those who call themselves Assyrian, who are also in these regions as well as in Iraq and Iran. Aramean identity is already discussed in several articles, and is espoused by Syriac Christian groups who aren't even Suraye/Suryoye. I'm confused over whether there is argument to create a new article because Arameans are separate or the same with such great differences that it would require a greater explanation; up to now, the latter has not been the case and the position of a church or political organization saying so doesn't equate to an actual separation of the group of people. Surayeproject3 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure if you’ve read anything from this thread, but the few articles that mention Arameans only briefly discuss them, with no acknowledgment of their history, culture, continuity, etc.

This is not just a matter of ethnicity; it’s about identity. Of course, it could also be a matter of ethnicity, but that is not the focus of this discussion. Currently, the Arameans are often written about as a subgroup of Assyrians, something that many studies and the people themselves reject.

For some studies, see this, this, and this. For some statements from the people themselves, please see this, this, and this. User623921 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I hope this meets your wishes:

Arameans should not be presented merely as a subgroup of Assyrians, with only a brief mention while ignoring their history, culture, continuity, literature, and broader heritage. On the Assyrian article, Arameans are written as a "subdivision" and are described as Assyrians identifying as Arameans, separating them from the ancient ones. The Aramean section of the page includes only three sentences.

Arameans are also commonly known as Syriacs, a term originally given to them by the Greeks, see this. Assyrians also received this term, but the Greeks later distinguished between Syriacs, meaning Arameans, and Assyrians, see this. Additional sources explain how the term Syriac became specifically associated with Arameans and how they received it, see this. Ancient manuscripts from the Arameans themselves also confirm this, though they are difficult to share.

Arameans are already recognized as an ethnic group with their own identity in Israel, see this. They are well established in the diaspora, carrying a distinct name that reflects their separate identity, see this, this, and this for references to their representatives.

For scholarly studies on Arameans as an independent identity, not a subgroup of Assyrians, see page 68 of this, page 57 of this, and this.

There are, of course, many more studies and sources, but this should be enough for a comment on a talk page. It is evident that both the people themselves and scholarly studies prove an Aramean identity.

Thank you. User623921 (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, Arameans are not "presented as a subgroup". It's one of the many names (e.g. Assyrians, Syriacs, Chaldeans, Arameans - or any combination) for the same modern ethnic group. Nobody is denying that. We do not need to include links to political organization or similar. Page 68 in Brock (third edition) is probably wrong, it's a page for online resources for Syriac studies. It is the same ethnic group with individuals and organizations having different views on it's ancient roots - and none of the sources, nor pro-Aramean organizations, are claiming anything different. I do not have anything more to add here. I oppose the suggestion, as it would be a WP:CFORK (as we have seen earlier) and lead to more edit warring. Shmayo (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Arameans are presented as a subgroup, described as "Assyrians identifying as Arameans," yet nothing suggests they are of Assyrian origin. On page 68 of the book, or by searching for "Aramean," you will see that the Aramean identity is considered the most fitting.

As I said, we could either suggest renaming the Assyrian page to Aramean and including the Aramean flag alongside the Assyrian one, or this remains the most logical approach. I have already provided sources proving that the Arameans are an independent identity, confirmed by both scholarly research and the Arameans themselves.

Nobody said this would be a fork. If your opposition is based on that concern, then help us develop the page so it isn't one. Aramean history and Assyrian history are clearly distinct enough to stand separately. User623921 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Support I actually fully agree with @User623921. I think that there is clearly enough proof for distinction between both groups. 2A02:A420:276:3CA8:AD08:C33B:7F4F:8274 (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Many (and I mean many) of the previous discussions on this page that talks about creating an article or sub-section for modern Arameans [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] have never went anywhere. All of the accounts and people who championed support for the very same thing you're supporting were IP addresses, sockpuppets, and other users who only have a few contributions to their account and were probably vandals. People like Shmayo have been continuously attacked as being an "Assyrian nationalist" for maintaining the article as discussing the ancient people, and it's just been a continuous back and forth for many years like all the other Assyrian vs Aramean discussions like previously discussed.

If both groups went through the same genocides, come from the same geographic area, speak the same language with different dialects, and have the same ancient history, they are the same people regardless of differing perspectives on identity and roots. As we've seen in previous years, the attempts to create such a separate article have basically been a WP:CFORK and would cause more edit warring. Besides cultural differences there is no proof that they are still ethnically separate from each other, so no separate article or section is needed. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Please leave these accusations and previous experiences out of this discussion. I think a collaboration to create a proper 'Arameans' page where modern Arameans do not feel excluded is smart. The majority of people belonging to the Western Syriac rite identify as Aramean. Let us all not leave this group out. 2A02:A420:276:3CA8:AD08:C33B:7F4F:8274 (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Many previous discussions have not gone anywhere, not because the argument for an Aramean identity is weak, but because of opposition from those who want to maintain the current narrative. Dismissing all past efforts as coming from IP addresses, sockpuppets, or vandals is not a valid argument; legitimate contributors have raised these concerns repeatedly.

Arameans and Assyrians do not share the same ancient history—Arameans trace their descent from the ancient Arameans, while Assyrians claim descent from the ancient Assyrians. The distinction is clear in both historical and modern self-identification.

Now, regarding your argument: "If both groups went through the same genocides, come from the same geographic area, speak the same language with different dialects, and have the same ancient history, they are the same people regardless of differing perspectives on identity and roots." If this were the case, why are Arameans barely mentioned in the article? Why is it not structured like the Swedish Wikipedia, where both terms are used throughout the article, in the title, and even with both flags? The inconsistency in representation contradicts the claim that they are the same people. User623921 (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Shmayo, your argument overlooks the core issue. The fact that there is an ongoing debate within the Syriac Christian community about whether to identify as Assyrian or Aramean (as cited in your own source Romeny, 2011) proves that a significant group explicitly identifies as Aramean. This alone justifies a separate Wikipedia page, just as Wikipedia distinguishes between various subgroups within broader ethnic categories.

Your reference to Romeny (2011) actually supports the argument for an Aramean identity, as it acknowledges that many Syriac Christians do not see themselves as Assyrians. Other scholars further confirm this distinction:

• Sebastian Brock (1994) emphasizes that "Syriac" is a broad linguistic and religious term, while "Aramean" refers to a distinct ethnic identity. (Brock, Sebastian P. "The Syriac Heritage: Background, Achievements, and Reflections." Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 7, no. 2 (2004): 267-287.)
• John Joseph (2000) highlights that while some Syriac Christians identify as Assyrian, many others strongly reject this label and maintain an Aramean identity.(Joseph, John. Muslim-Christian Relations and Inter-Christian Rivalries in the Middle East: The Case of the Jacobites in an Age of Transition. SUNY Press, 1983, p. 136.)
• Heleen Murre-van den Berg (2006) discusses the different self-identifications within Syriac Christianity and acknowledges that many reject Assyrian nationalism in favor of an Aramean heritage.(Murre-van den Berg, Heleen. "Chaldeans and Assyrians: The Church of the East in the Ottoman Period." The Christian Heritage of Iraq (2006): 125-142.)
• Andrew Palmer (1990) notes that the Tur Abdin region has historically been inhabited by people who self-identified as Arameans, maintaining their cultural and linguistic traditions separate from those of Assyrian nationalists.(Palmer, Andrew. Monks and Masonry: The Cultural History of Tur Abdin. Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 55.)

And once again... Wikipedia maintains separate pages for subgroups within larger ethnic identities, such as:

Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews, Zazas and Kurds, Crimean Tatars and Volga Tatars

By the same logic, Arameans deserve their own page, just as Wikipedia does for these other groups. The presence of a shared linguistic or religious heritage (Syriac Christianity) does not erase separate historical and cultural identities, because thats what you seem to state.

You claim that all Syriac Orthodox Christians are "part of the same people," but this is not a neutral perspective. As your own source (Romeny, 2011) indicates, there is a real and ongoing debate about identity within the community. Wikipedia’s role is not to dictate identity, but to accurately represent all perspectives backed by reliable sources.

A separate page or section for Arameans does not deny common historical connections with Assyrians, but rather recognizes the diversity within the community. This is precisely what Wikipedia is meant to do: provide neutral, detailed, and well-sourced information rather than imposing a singular, oversimplified narrative. Kivercik (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I still do not deny the fact a part of the modern group identify themselves as "Arameans" (just as there are people identifying as "Chaldeans"; which is merely what the sources above highlight). And I agree with Brock on "Syriac", even though it's used somewhat differently sometimes today. Yes, there has been an ongoing debate since the late 70s/early 80s. Still, a self-identifying "Assyrian" from Tur Abdin and a self-identifying "Aramean" from Tur Abdin would both identify themselves as Sur(y)oye in their mother tongue, the rest being silly discussions on labels in Western languages. Makes me have a hard time understanding what you put into "separate historical and cultural identities", that is just not what this name debate is. Shmayo (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your acknowledgment that part of the modern group identifies as "Arameans." However, your argument that this is merely a labeling issue in Western languages fails to consider the deeper historical and cultural distinctions between these identities, let me try to explain (which is also supported by the scholars I named before):

Yes, both self-identifying Assyrians and Arameans from Tur Abdin may use the term Sur(y)oye in their native language, but this does not mean they share the same historical and cultural identity (especially since this term is often used in combination with either the word Oromoyo (Arameans) or Othuroyo (Assyrians) by many to point out they advocate either an Aramean or Assyrian heritage. The fact that both groups have engaged in a debate since the late 20th century about their identity only reinforces the need to acknowledge these differences rather than dismissing them as "silly discussions." Identity is not just about language, it is about historical continuity, self-perception, and cultural traditions.

A key example of this cultural divergence is the celebration of the new year:

• Assyrians celebrate Akitu (Assyrian New Year) on April 1st, an ancient Mesopotamian tradition tied to Assyrian heritage.
• Arameans, on the other hand, celebrate their own cultural New Year on October 1st, reflecting their distinct historical traditions

This is not simply a matter of semantics in Western languages but rather a reflection of separate historical and cultural identities. If this were purely a matter of terminology, we would not see such clear distinctions in traditions, some cultural elements and especially historical narratives.

Furthermore (as I have stated before), Wikipedia does not base its structure on whether two groups share a common linguistic or religious heritage, it recognizes and separates subgroups based on historical and cultural identities.

Your argument that this is merely a "name debate" fails to account for the historical context. As long as a significant group identifies as Aramean and scholars such as Brock, Joseph, and Murre-van den Berg acknowledge this distinction, Wikipedia should reflect this reality rather than impose a homogenized identity. Kivercik (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Historical legacy refers to aspects that directly involve the Arameans, such as the School of Nisibis and literature produced by Aramean Church fathers. Many historical events and cultural traditions are specific to the Arameans rather than the Assyrians, not only in ancient times but also later. For instance, the Arameans have rejected Kha b'Nisan for millennia and instead recognized a Suryoyo New Year on October 1.

Culturally, Arameans from Tur Abdin do not celebrate the same festivals as Assyrians in Iraq. They have distinct traditions, clothing, and customs. For example, instead of Akitu, they observe a small tradition known as "Hano Kritho."

If there is no disagreement that Arameans exist, have a separate identity from Assyrians, and claim descent from a distinct group, there should be no objection to an article about them. Previous attempts have been criticized as forks, but this one will not be. If there are concerns, collaboration could ensure it remains distinct.

Alternatively, if a separate article is not acceptable, the Assyrian article could be adjusted to match the Swedish Wikipedia, where both terms are used consistently, both flags are included, and the title reflects both identities.

The user above briefly addressed some of the points I had also written before I had the chance to read them, but oh well. User623921 (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an Aramean New Year. I have never once heard of any Suraye who identifies as Aramean celebrating such a festival, and after searching it in English, German, and Swedish, I find that there is not enough sources outside of organizations like the World Council of Arameans to denote its existence, in fact all the other results are for Assyrian New Year.

The fact that there are some cultural celebrations that are practiced in some communities compared to others isn't indicative enough to say that they're separate peoples entirely, it just means there's cultural diversity under one umbrella; you've stated prior that there are Suraye who come to diaspora from Iraq and identify as Aramean, but they didn't celebrate Hano Kritho there because that celebration is specific to Tur Abdin. Wouldn't there be Assyrian identifying Suraye from Tur Abdin who also celebrate it as well? Don't those same Suraye also trace their religious history to the School of Nisibis and other Syriac writers (Assyrians don't deny that they have some ancestry to the Arameans, but those ancient peoples assimilated into the Assyrian empire and Aramaic was the lingua franca of Mesopotamia)? I'm also specifically talking about the Aramean identifying Suraye who come from Tur Abdin and northeastern Syria as throughout this time, it's been mentioned that Maronites (and if not previously mentioned, Arab Christians) also identify as Aramean, but they're not Suraye and instead their own ethnic groups. They don't share the same heritage as Tur Abdinoye and those from Gozarto, so what uniqueness do they have to offer to Aramean heritage that isn't already, Maronite, Arab Christian, or otherwise?

I'm also gonna be leaving a response to my last point above in this reply. At this point, the previous history of banned accounts and IP addresses advocating for separate articles/sections of the same people is so abundant that it has to be considered when discussing the topic now. It's not that the representation is inconsistent, it's that there is so much overlap between the two that they're basically the same people. They use the same name natively, "Suraye", to describe themselves. I concur that arguments otherwis are just part of the naming dispute, and there are other arguments that are worth mentioning too:

• Previously, it was stated that Suraye from Iraq who come to Germany begin identifying as Aramaer (Aramean) once they arrive in the country. However, I imagine that they are mostly Syriac Orthodox (and some Catholic) because most Suraye from Iraq are Chaldean Catholic and I have never once heard of a Chaldean calling themselves Aramean. At that point, this implies that Aramean is mostly used as an identity in the diaspora or in specific areas of the Assyrian homeland that are majority Syriac Orthodox. The dispute over the name is nowhere near as big in Tur Abdin, Syria, or Iraq as it is in the diaspora, and they acknowledge that we're one people.
• It was also mentioned that only a group can determine their identity based on historical and cultural experiences, and not outside sources or authors. If this is the case, why were there authors cited that have previously denied Assyrian continuity, something which is widely accepted in academia? If Aramean identity is espoused by different religious groups of the Syriac rite, what is their shared cultural and historical experiences that create one Aramean identity that would need a separate section or article? Suraye who identify as Aramean lived ancestrally in the same areas of Suraye who identify as Assyrian, and they have the same historical and cultural experiences there. There is still not enough distinction between the two that warrants separate sections or articles.

Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)