This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
I would strongly argue against a fusuin with Biblical Aram, as Aram was just one of a whole plethora of Aramaean states that developed in the period between the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age.
Regards John D. Croft 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I would say not to. Aram is a region (not a state, by the way) and Aramaeans are a people. It is the norm to seperate the two into seperate articles. Examples would include Thracians and Thrace, urther, Shemite is used these days as an alternative to the tricky word Semitic. The latter word has linguistic connotations while Shemite is still terminology purely used in reference to biblical genealogy i.e. the country called Elam was certainly Shemite in the biblical sense but by no means semitic in the linguistic sense. The word Shemite is used here in this article to infer to the more discening reader that although the bible mentions a nation known as Aram as one of Shem's 5 immediate offspring, the linguistic nature of that alledged nation (nor indeed their eastern location) cannot be determined with any certainty despite attempts to connect them with central asia.
This article continues to contain completely incorrect information as the two gentlemen above point out that makes use of the traditional evangelical Christian narrative in the English language concocted by false and disproven reference sources of so-called "Biblical archaeology" which has been disproven in its entirety by Israel Finkelstein, Ronny Reich and others both working for the Israeli Antiquities Authority and around the world. The Kingdom of Israel never existed historically- the lands were Canaan, Samaria and Judea. The map is totally fictitious. We know from recent archaeology that Jerusalem only has the sort of habitation that would justify a city of David by earliest the 600's BCE, more likely the 500's. Solomon, David and Saul and that bunch are definitely fictional characters, and the earliest inscription of Jerusalem we have is from the 1st century BCE. Request that an editor place the article under monitoring and require authors make use of sources published at earliest within the last 10 years. Canlawtictoc (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
It's Aramaean or Aramæan, not Aramean. — Chameleon My page/My talk 07:46, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-- http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut%2026:5;&version=45; Deuteronomy 26:5 Amplified Bible uses Aramean, which is why I searched for the term. If Aramean wasn't used, the wiki article would not have appeared in search results. Dave
This article is in a very poor condition. It does not distinguish properly between different uses of the name 'Aramaean' through history. Nor does it give a decent history of ancient Aram. I think this is a fair candidate for complete rewrite. Does anyone disagree?
I agree! (sharrukin 03:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC))
History Section: Since when is the bible a historic document? One can't use biblical stories as a historical source.
You can use the Bible as a historical source, but you need to remember its accuracy and bias (like every source) and not use it as the only source. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
According to the Semitic languages article, Aramaic is a West Semitic language like Hebrew and Arabic. Akkadian is an East Semitic language. So Aramaic is probably not a dialect of Akkadian.
That seems wrong. By the time that the Arameans were moving into Mesopotamia, Sumer and Akkad were generally collectively called "Babylonia." Also, "Aramean" is the people, and Aramaic the language. Wouldn't it be called "Babylonian Aramaic"? john k 23:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the Aramaeans arrived around 1100 BC. Apart from the enigmatic references to "Nahrima" in the Amarna letters, is there any evidence for an Aramaean presence in the Levant before 1100 BC?--Rob117 22:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Tell me what you think, it needs alot of work, I you can.... HELP... thanks (sharrukin 08:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC))
Thanks for the help. I am seriously considering changing Arameans to Aramaeans, all the "What links here" will then go to Arameans which will be linked (transfered) to Aramaeans. Slowly all related articles will adjust. What do you think? (sharrukin 17:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC))
Topic closed. Neither reasons (mentioned) are valid enough, to make the transfer, since many scholars now spell it Arameans and also that its widely used in Wikipedia (less vas et viens). (sharrukin 18:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC))
I will be working on the modern Aramaeans section, indeed it is uncomplete and weak. At the moment I did not have much documentation or personal solid knowledge on this specific topic. (sharrukin 19:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC))
I am sure there's alot more of work/study/research to be done on it. Hope to get some help achieving this:
(sharrukin 19:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC))
As the Chaldeans are often said to have originally been an Aramaic tribe, should they be addressed as well?--Rob117 02:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
They were definitely Semitic, or at least Semiticized. Every source I look at that attempts to trace their origin calls them an Aramaic tribe.--Rob117 01:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Rawlinson was writing more than a hundred years ago. It's quite possible that what he called the "Chaldeans" may be what we would call the "Sumerians." Even if not, he's certainly not a reasonable authority at this point - the Chaldeans were certainly semites, and apparently spoke Aramaic. john k 01:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The quote is found at Gutenberg. He seems to be talking about Chaldeans rather than Sumerians (though he muddles the two a bit) but I agree generally with John K's above remarkBriangotts (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Looking at Rawlinson's discussion of the "Chaldees" and their language, it seems clear he is referring to Sumerian - or, at least, to a possibly non-Semitic language spoken in lower Mesopotamia centuries before the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The only possible language this could be is Sumerian, as far as I can tell. I think it is perfectly fine to say the Chaldeans were an Aramean group. john k 01:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The terms Chaldean and Chaldee were often retrospectively and in a much later sense applied to regions and peoples in southern Mesopotamia at a time long before the Chaldeans actually arrived. An example of this is Abraham supposedly coming from Ur of the Chaldees. This would have been impossible, as IF Abraham existed, he would have lived circa 1800-1700 BCE, and that is almost a thousand years before the Chaldeans actually arrived. There is no mention of them prior to the 9th century BCE, and no mention of them in Mesopotamian records after the 6th century BCE.
The Chaldeans are generally believed to have been culturally similar to the Arameans and hailing from the same Levantine regions, but a different group, Sennacherib differentiates the two peoples in his annals. The idea that they were Arameans is now a dated argument. The Roman Catholic Church kept the name alive, applying it inaccurately to Greek, Anatolian and Assyrian converts to Catholicism in the late Middle Ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Durring the advent of Christianity, Christian Arameans (Aramaye) referred to themselves as Syriac (Suraye) as apposed to Aramean to distinguish themselves from the Pagans (Kappore). In fact the term Syriac is used almost interchangably with Christian albeit the two terms aren't the same.
The forefather of the Syriacs have allways identified themselves as Aramean, there is no misstake here. Many sources still survive. There are many famous quotes that validate this.
St Jacob of Serugh (451-521AD) famously wrote this about St Afrem the Syrian: "He who became a wreath to the whole Aramean nation"
Jacob Bar Salibi (ca 1171AD) wrote that "we are the sons of Aram"
Remember forward (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I reverted Pylambert's removal of the the Modern section, and subsequently the Syriacs template.
I also think the quality of the section needs a lot of improvement, but simply deleting it is in my opinion a misleading way of changing the subject of the article, which was apparently the primary objective of the editor. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
However, there should be a sentence in an appropriate position that says that many traditionally Aramaic-speaking Christians of the Middle East consider themselves to be descendended from the ancient Aramaeans yea and we should also clearly state that these people do not live in the middle east, but rather in Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden. Chaldean 03:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello people. The article needs a lot of work. please lets wait for a while to improve it. Brusk u Trishka 10:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Arameans → Aramaeans – In the article itself, Aramaeans is consequently used. For the sake of conformance, I suggest moving the article. Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
Chaldeans, Nestorians and Syriacs are part of aramiac people and its a diclamer on this article where it stands that thoose are Aramaens. Nochi 11:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
An example of the joke;
WHERE IN THE MIDDLE EAST DO YOU ACTUALLY FIND PEOPLE CALLING THEMSELVES AMARAEAN? NOWHERE. Chaldean 12:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC
"Aramaeans" is a self-designation of Assyrians in Germany, see de:Aramäer (Gegenwart). This may be noted at Assyrian people. dab (𒁳) 13:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not see any mention of Aramaean religion practiced by more than 166000 people in Iraq, in this article. I found information of this religion, a news item, on Aljazeera TV news chanel recently. These people of Aramaean origin practice that religion and they claim to be very different from Islamic Arameans, they tell that they believe in peaceful living and do not believe in killing any body in the name of Jehad. They worship a river Euphrates. A movie clip showed, they reading their scripture, writen in old Aramaen language as explained by the commentor. It appeared to me that their ancient religion has something common with Hinduism of india. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I am fixing an Arab article and I want to refrence to the Arameans that don't identify as Arabs. Is this the right website? http://www.aramnaharaim.org/ --Skatewalk 11:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Honestly I am a bit confused. I know the majority among Maronites don't identify as Arabs (only a minority are ethnic Arabs and a fewer number of self idnetified Arabs). I tried changing the number of Arabs in Lebanon to 2million Arabs instead of 4 Million, but it got reverted.
Is Aramean a cultural term? similar to the Modern Arab term? can you be an ethnic Turk and be Aramean if you choose to be? Just like you can be an Arab even if you are ethnically berber?
Also religion? Can you be an Aramean Muslim? or does the religious status of Arabic in Islam conflicts with the Aramean identity?
Anyways thanks for the reply. --Skatewalk 23:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok man you are very politically minded! I am against political imposed identities (Arabization included), anyways I asked other questions =( ! --Skatewalk 03:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
These are Assyrianist lies. I have personally met and read interviews with Syriacs in Turkey who identify themselves as Aramaeans. Also, on the website you found, and the Urhoy website I pointed out to you, you can find plenty of references to Syriacs who identify Syrians with Aramaeans. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
If anyone here is perpetuating lies, it's Benne. Either cite academic sources, or get lost with your Aramaeanist bullshit revisionist websites. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:41 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
this isn't about "lies", it is about 19th century rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire. 19th century history isn't within the scope of this article, please take it elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 12:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This ridiculous conversation sounds like something that could have come from Borat. What on earth are you people talking about? Arameans/ Assyrians lol! It's the equivalent of a bunch of Italians arguing about whether they are Etruscan, Umbrians or Samnites after 2500 years of invasions, migrations and intermarriage. Get a life.
While I'm at it, what does The great massacre that took place in later days from the Hittites left the Arameans broken and worthless but they rose again. mean? Is this a mish-mash of broken English propagandistic editing on top of older propaganda?1812ahill (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It is well known that Aramaeans primarily originated in Arabia. It is written in Wikipedia itself in countless places, but it doesn't show in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HD1986 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
A completely bogus theory. If not please provide references.Sr 76 (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd always got the impression that Aram fathered the original Armenian Empire and the newer language of modern Armenia came later due to much outside influence. Is this not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The toponyms Aram for the Aramaeans and Armina for the Armenians. It is unlikely that they have anything to do with one another, although it cannot be ruled out that they are both derived from a single, prehistoric, toponym, since after all, from the Mesopotamian perspective, where these toponyms were used (both are exonyms!), both regions were just "to the north". We can't know. --dab (𒁳) 13:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is this information not in this article? "An Aramean identity is one form of Syriac identity, emphasizing Aramaean identity. The Aramaeans were a people settling in the Levant since the Late Bronze Age, who following the Bronze Age collapse formed a number of small kingdoms before they were conquered into the Assyrian Empire in the course of the 9th to 8th centuries BC.
Such an Aramaean identity is mainly held by Syriac Christians in Lebanon, Turkey, Syria and in the diaspora especially in Germany and Sweden.[24] In English, they self-identify as "Syriac", sometimes expanded to "Syriac-Aramaean" or "Aramaean-Syriac". In German, Aramäer is a common self-designation.
The "Aramaean" faction often puts emphasis on the destruction of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, especially in the words of the prophet Nahum and his description of the fall of Nineveh.[25]" ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
this is the article on the historical people, not the modern group. Like, as has been pointed out in the disambiguation hatnote at the top of the article for ages. The article on the modern group currently resides at Assyrian people. I know this violates WP:NPOV, but allegedly there was a "consensus" for this move. I have protested this claim as bullshit, but here you are. If you want to do anything about this, you want to establish that there was no "consensus" for a move of Assyrian/Syriac people to the current title. Do not attempt to begin a "proxy war" about this ill-advised move at this unrelated article about a Bronze Age topic, you will lose my support in the naming thing immediately if you try such tactics.
You are right that there should be no discussion of "modern Assyrians" on the Assyria page, but I fail to see any undue material in the current revision of that article. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
In recent edits, it has been claimed that the Aramaeans in the Assyrian empire "fell to the Assyrianization process of the Assyrian empire". Which is very doubtful. On the contrary, the mainstream opinion among modern schoolars seems to be that the Assyrian empire was Aramaized by the Aramaeans ([1], [2], [3], [4]). The TriZ (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
From the edit log:
Sorry, but have you been paying any attention to the huge "Aramaean":"Syriac":"Assyrian" nonsense? It has only been going on for about three years all over Wikipedia. Of course Modern Aramaic is ultimately descended from the West Semitic language of the ancient Aramaeanes. Like, about 3,400 years later (or, if we are kind, 2,700 years). Giving the Modern Aramic term for Aramaeans, aramaia, more likely than not adopted from the Greek just like English "Aramaeans", is about as sensible as giving Gaelic Na Ceiltigh and Welsh Y Celtiaid as the "native name" in the intro to the Celts article. In other words, not sensible at all, but an involuntarily comic, irresponsible pushing of the naivest sort of ethnic essentialism.
I am sorry, Til, I can hardly believe I need to point out any of this in any detail. You really left me with the impression of a mature and informed editor in recent months.
If we can cite an actual self-designation, recorded natively before 700 BCE, that would be an entirely different matter. If you have such a reference, by all means cite it. Compare the "Gutans" debate at Goths. Gutans is a reasonable reconstruction of what the Goths probably called themselves. Some people insist on beginning the article "The Goths (Gothic: Gutans)". This is at least not an anachronism, but it is highly dubious because the name is not actually attested. I am sure you will find no other encyclopedia that introduces the Goths in this fashion. What you are trying to do here is not so much like "the Goths (Gothic: Gutans)", it is much more like "The Teutons (German: die Deutschen)". The difference being that we don't get many German-speaking editors mad about the idea of being identical with the ancient Teutons while, by contrast, we get lots of Aramaic-speaking editors (or at least, editors whose grandparents could still speak Aramaic) who are absolutely desperate to be identical with the ancient Aramaeans. Wikipedia gets this a lot, it's not a problem, we just need to be on the lookout for such edits and revert them. Thank you.
--dab (𒁳) 13:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks, fixing links to disambiguation pages and found a blue link for Jazirah in the last paragraph of the "Origins" section. I have delinked it as there is no article for this "Jazirah" at Jazira. I assume this is a document, perhaps someone here can try to link it properly if possible. Cheers, The Interior(Talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Aramaeans → Arameans — Relisted. Opposition seems to be based on WP:ENGVAR however this article began using Arameans. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Has more widespread usage over "Aram[a]eans". "Aram[a]eans" often used in academic research, and though some books can be found under the "Aram[a]ean" name, others can be found under the "Aramean" name as well.
Although it's not justifying, but Google test results shows:
Anyhow, it would not harm the article (and those redirected to it) whatsoever. - שבור (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I know this have been discussed before but I think we need to clarify here that some modern Assyrians/Syriacs may prefer to be identified as "Aramaeans".--Rafy talk 19:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Syrian/Syriac is not an ethnicity or race. These words both mean Assyrian historically, so if you call someone Syrian or Syriac it means Assyrian entymologically. Aramean and Assyrian are real ethnic words;- Aramean from the Levant, Assyrian from North Mesopotamia. Syriac always meant exactly and just Assyrian until the Greeks included The Levant into Assyria/Syria. This is all very very clear.
Is there even a reason to include this fact? - "A city of Aram (or Iram) is also mentioned in the Qur'an, as Aram of the Pillars, home to the A'ad people in Alahqaf region الأحقاف (The Rub' al Khali)." It doesn't seem to have any relation to the article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.40.57 (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand what the "Aramean flag," clearly a modern invention, has to do with this article, which is explicitly "about the ancient people" (who obviously did not use such a flag). Languagehat (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The statement "In 2014, Israel has decided to..." might be incorrect because the source hasn't supported the figure of 10,000 Syriac Christians in Israel, it is about 1,000 but unconfirmed. This statement should be updated, with:-
"By 2014, Israel started to recognize the Aramean community as part of the country's population demographics."[5](updated source)
OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
If you don’t reply, I’ll have to assume that you have nothing against me editing this article. Shabo.Hanna.Izgin (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello
I dont understand it? This is going about the Aramean history? But there is another Aramean page? Why arent these pages 1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.153.68 (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
No one understands it, Wikipedia administrators have completely messed this up. Sr 76 (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
if you donnot answer this, then I’ll have to assume you have nothing against me editing this aricle. Shabo.Hanna.Izgin (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the first line only reads this way based on the politically driven POV. There should be no reason why it still reads: The Arameans, or Aramaeans, (Aramaic: ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ, ארמיא ; ʼaramáyé) were a Northwest Semitic people who originated in what is now.....
please changed to: The Arameans, or Aramaeans, (Aramaic: ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ, ארמיא ; ʼaramáyé) are a Northwest Semitic people who originated in what is now.....
Sources: S.Brock, "An introduction to Syriac Studies" "Various alternatives have been adopted, including (by the more secular minded) 'Assyrian' which has caused considerable controversy (and trouble in some countries); a better choice would seem to be 'Aramean'" p68
Sebastien de Courtois, "The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, the Last Arameans" Interprets Xaview de Planhol: "Were the Nestorians of Hakkari [Assyrians] originally Arameans from the plain 'kurdized' by contact with the Kurds, or were they Kurds who had become Christian under the cultural influence of the Aramaic world?" p51
E.Fraham “Wie ‘christlich’ war die assyrische Religion? Anmerkungen zu Simo Parpalas Edition in Die Welt des Orient” 31 (2000-2001), following a missionary impulse” and compares him to the “Christian Arameans ‘Assyrians’ from Northern Iraq p 31-45
In a letter to John Joseph, dated June 11, 1997 Patricia Crone wrote that she and Cook: “We take it for granted that they got the modern Assyrian label from the West and proceeded to reinvent themselves… Of course the Nestorians were Arameans.”
Sr 76 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I'm not complaining about the article title.
It was the word "were" instead of "are". No it does not constitute a content-fork. There is nothing to suggest that the ancient Arameans became extinct, so why use the phrase the Arameans were? If the Arameans page is for the ancient Arameans then so be it. and since you have the content of modern Arameans clumped into the Assyrian people in the and the disambiguation of the page pointing the Assyrian people page. Where is the content-fork? Sr 76 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
((edit protected))
template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: where is the content fork?
Sr 76 (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Established..... Sr 76 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Sr 76 (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: since you clearly misunderstood my original edit request, can you now give your consensus to the edit request?Sr 76 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: If you want the article to refer to the ancient Arameans only, then the sentence should start like this:" The ancient or pre-Christian Arameans, or Aramaeans, (Aramaic: ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ, ארמיא ; ʼaramáyé) were a Northwest Semitic people... ." --Suryoyo124 (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
A Political History of the Arameans: From Their Origins to the End of Their Polities by K. Lawson Younger Jr., 2016, Society of Biblical Literature. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
This article uses historical information from myth or mythology, religious sources or narratives that are unsupported in scientifically sound and humanistically rational manner.
It makes use of sources, authors and ideas affiliated with the traditional evangelical Christian narrative in the English language concocted by false and disproven ideas of so-called "Biblical archaeology" which has been disproven in its entirety in the past 30 years by mainstream archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein, Ronny Reich and others both working for the Israeli Antiquities Authority and around the world. The Kingdom of Israel never existed historically- the lands were Canaan, Samaria and Judea. The map is totally fictitious. We know from recent archaeology that Jerusalem only has the sort of habitation that would justify a city of David by earliest the 600's BCE, more likely the 500's. Solomon, David and Saul and that bunch are definitely fictional characters, and the earliest inscription of Jerusalem we have is from the 1st century BCE. Request that an editor place the article under monitoring and require authors make use of sources published at earliest within the last 10 years as this is a controversial subject given that the Aramaics have now been permitted to serve in the IDF. Canlawtictoc (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Eg - primary reliance is on sources from 1931 and 1950's! Canlawtictoc (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Why does it say "The Arameans (Aramaic: ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ, Oromoye, Arabic: آراميون), were an ancient ..."?/ It seems like you're saying that Arameans don't exist today. I am Aramean, my family and relatives are all Arameans, my friends are Arameans. We speak and write the in the Aramaic language. how come you say "were"? Shabo.Hanna.Izgin (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't know who said this, but I guess some admin did, or the person who created this article.
"The Arameans never formed a unified state but had small independent kingdoms across parts of the Near East, (present-day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian territories, the northwestern Arabian peninsula and south-central Turkey). Their political influence was confined to a number of states such as Aram Damascus, Hamath, Palmyra, Aleppo and the partly Aramean Syro-Hittite states, which were entirely absorbed into the Neo-Assyrian Empire (935–605 BC) by the 9th century BC. In the Neo-Assyrian Empire, the Aramaeans, Chaldeans, Suteans and indigenous Assyrians-Babylonians became largely indistinguishable, as these groups were culturally and ethnically absorbed into the native populace of Mesopotamia.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the help page).
There even is a page about the Assyrian conquest of Aram.
So the next question we have is do the modern descendants of these people do agree that they are the same or did they grow out to seperate identities/nations?
Opinions differ on this question. For example in Israel people can register themselves with an Assyrian nationality or with an Aramean nationality.[1]
The state does not see them as one nation and the people themselves don’t see themselves as one nation too.
How do we know?
Both groups have a seperate flag, the Assyrian flag [2] and the Aramean flag[3] also both groups do have different universal organizations to represent them: The WCA (Worl Council of Arameans) recognized by the United Nations (UN) and the Assyrian Universal Alliance who’s a member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization.
Its also worthy to point out that Assyrians in Israel and Arameans in Israel are two seperated pages and that the page Arameans in Israel is attacked by Assyrian nationalists several times till it was protected by Wikipedia admins.
My conclusion: the edit on this article needs to be reverted and the page needs to be protected to prevent vandalism by accounts registred less than X days.