Talk:Michael the Syrian

Starting the page

I've added whatever I had to get this article under way. There is more in the German article, but my German is a bit shaky. The only bits of the Chronicle that I can find are in French and about the crusades, so I have translated those and stuck them in here. But they give an unbalanced impression of his history, so if anyone can add more, that would be good. Roger Pearse 21:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Hill Museum and Manuscript Library digitally photographed the entire 1598 copy of the 12th century Chronicle, the Edessa-Aleppo Syricac Codex, in Aleppo, Syria in 2008. Facsimile copes of the Chronicle will be printed by the Gorgias Press in 2009. Reader: T. Barrett , 19 May 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.185.130 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit-war and distorted quote

There has recently been renewed edit-warring about a purported quotation from Michael the Syrian. Having checked up on it, I'll copy here the results of my check, for later reference.

1. We are dealing with this repeated edit, ostensibly including a literal quotation from Michael the Great, sourced to an Assyrian POV website, from there ostensibly sourced to Adai Scher, and ultimately ostensibly sourced to an 19th-century edition, by J.-B. Chabot, of Michael's chronicle. ("History of Mikhael The Great Chabot Edition p. 748, 750, quoted after Addai Scher, Hestorie De La Chaldee Et De "Assyrie" ")
2. The website http://www.christiansofiraq.com is dead, but it's archived here
3. If you look at that website, you will see that it is highly ambiguous as to whether it is ascribing the words in question to Adai Scher or to Michael himself. Apparently the entire paragraph is something written by Scher, with some bits in it ostensibly quoted from Michael, but it isn't typographically clear where those internal quotations begin and end. The website also does not contain the alleged page references to the Chabot edition.
4. The second-level reference, to Scher, is misspelled – the title of that work is not Hestorie De La Chaldee Et De "Assyrie" (which isn't correct French), but Histoire de la Chaldee et de l'Assyrie. I have not been able to locate an online version of this work, and there is no page number given for it. The book appears to be in French (based on an original apparently in Arabic), while the purported quote is in English, without explanation of whose translation it is. This English translation, together with the curious misspelling of Scher's title, occurs nowhere else on the web but on Wikipedia and on various partisan Assyrian websites and messageboards, all evidently blindly copying from each other.
5. The third-level reference, to the Chabot edition of Michael, is also wrong, as the Chabot edition doesn't even have pages numbered "748" and "750". (It's three volumes, and each volume goes to between 300 and 500 pages or so.) However, a full-text version of the Chabot edition is available on archive.org. In it, there is a passage that appears to be vaguely related to the alleged quote, not in "pages" 748/750, but in "sections" 748/750, which can be found in Vol. III, pp. 442-443 (§748) and pp. 445–446 (§750) respectively (large PDF file, may take a while to load.) I have read that text (in French). There are a few snippets that might somehow be related to snippets of the purported quote:

   (Update: It's been pointed out to me that the numbers 748 and 750 do in fact refer to pages after all. They are those in the Syriac-language text, which appears to form a separate volume in Chabot's edition.)

Alleged quotation	Chabot text	My translation of Chabot text
Your Syrian sect has no importance neither honor, and you did never have a kingdom, neither an honorable king'. The Jacobites answered by saying [...]	[nothing corresponding in Chabot's text, although the whole passage in Michael's text is indeed about a defense against the charge that the Arameans/Syrians didn't have ancient kings and empires]
[...] that even if their name is "Syrian", they are originally "Assyrians" and they have had many honorable kings [...]	[nothing in Chabot's text; might be Adai Scher's attempt at summarizing Michael]
Syria is in the west of Euphrates, and its inhabitants who are talking our Aramaic language, and who are so-called "Syrians", are only a part of the "all", while the other part which was in the east of Euphrates, going to Persia, had many kings from Assyria and Babylon and Urhay. [...]	Ainsi, on voit que la Syrie était à l'ouest de l'Euphrate; et qu'on appelle par métaphore «Syriens» ceux qui parlent notre langue à nous, Araméens, et dont les Syriens ne sont qu'une partie; tout le reste' habite à l'est de l'Euphrate, c'est-à-dire depuis les rives de l'Euphrate jusqu'en Perse. Et depuis les rives de l'Euphrate jusqu'à l'Orient, il y eut de nombreux rois. [...] [p.445-446]	So, one can see that Syria was to the west of the Euphrates, and that the name "Syrians" is applied by way of metaphor to those who speak our language, the Arameans, of which the Syrians are only one part; the others all live east of the Euphrates, that is from the banks of the Euphrates all the way to Persia. And from the banks of the Euphrate towards the East, there have been numerous kings. [...]
Assyrians, who were called "Syrians" by the Greeks, were also the same Assyrians, I mean "Assyrians" from "Assur" who built the city of Nineveh.	[nothing closely corresponding, though some bits appear to echo the following: ] Josèphe […] appelle Asùr «Assour», en langue grecque : «Assour, de qui proviennent les Assyriens, bâtit Ninive» [p.443]	Josephus […] calls Asùr "Assur", in Greek: "Assur, from which derive the Assyrians, built Niniveh".

I am concluding that the alleged quotation is indeed fabricated, and am warning everybody against reinserting it.

The other quotation is more or less correct as far as Michael's text goes, but it is WP:OR as long as it is not supported by a reliable WP:Secondary source explaining what its significance might be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Further investigation into this lead me too.....Not being able to locate the French in any University library in Australia. However the original work by Addai Scher was a book in Arabic called "Chaldo wAshur" translates into "Chaldeans and Assyrians". This book happens to appear in my father's collection, so He read through it (I don't know Arabic). And all the references attributed to Michael the Syrian by Addai Scher by multiple Wikipedia Users simply don't exists. Michael the Syrian is referenced in the book, but not in the way that was used here.

In fact Scher's book is littered with passages claiming the Chaldeans and Assyrians are in fact Arameans.

So the misquotation of Michael the Syrian is not actually in the Scher's Arabic. I seriously doubt that falsification is in the french translation, since it is much more likely to belong to more recent Assyrian Propaganda peddlers.

Sr 76 (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Djwilms: I saw you post on the Assyrian Continuity page about Michael the Syrian, this section may answer some of your concerns Sr 76 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Historical Works Influenced by the Edessean Schools

Dorothea Weltecke Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East Page: 119 Things become less clear when we try to decide his position concerning secular and ethnic identity. It is obvious that for Michael the ancient Near East had a very special importance. The ancient Near East recurred in the Chronicle. In the heading of his Appendix II Michael states: 'With the help of God we write down the memory of the kingdoms which belong in the past to our Aramean people, that is, sons of Aram, who are called Suryoye [Syriacs], this people from Syria'......

Page: 120 "But when he named those decendants of Shem who possess a script he says the following: 'These are the names of the people who have script among the descendants of Shem: Chaldeans, Oturoye [Assyrians], who are the Suryoye [Syriacs], Hebrew, Persians, Medes, Arabs'. A few pages before he said: 'These are the descendants pf Shem, Oturoye [Assyrians], Chaldeans, Lydians, Oromoye [Arameans], that is , Suryoye [Syriacs]'. Who are the Suryoye [Syriacs] to Michael: Assyrians or Arameans? While is painful for outspoken Arameans to be identified with the Assyrians, one has to bear in mind, that following Jacob of Edessa, Michael also supports the hypothesis that Assyrians are descendants of the Arameans. For Michael, Aramaic is the original language spoken not only in all of the ancient Near Eastern empires but by mankind in general, before the confusion of the languages after the building of the Tower of Babel took place. While Michael was not the first to hold this opinion, his position will be underlined here to highlight the difference between his and modern viewpoints of Assyrians and Arameans." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr 76 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2015

the following was removed by Suryoye85 on 08:08, 27 March 2015 "...the kingdoms which have been established in antiquity by our race, (that of) the Arameans, namely the descendants of Aram, who were called Syriac."

it looks like the only reason why he removed it was because, that the fake Assyrian quote was removed, so he deleted this one out of spite. it should be restored.

He identifies the Syriac-speakers of his time with the ancient Arameans:

...the kingdoms which have been established in antiquity by our race, (that of) the Arameans, namely the descendants of Aram, who were called Syriac.

Sr 76 (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: There needs to be a better reason to include it than "it was removed and it should be restored", given that this was one of the issues that caused the article to be protected, and it is only sourced to a primary source. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I should have explained it better. It was not one of the issues that caused the article to be blocked, they were falsified quotes the I identified, by Assyrian Bishop named Adia Scher. They have nothing to do with this quote. Please see the section above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_the_Syrian#Historical_Works_Influenced_by_the_Edessean_Schools
The quote provides a clear indication of the writers theories about origins of Nations he identified with as someone from the Edessean Schooling.

With the help of God we write down the memory of the kingdoms which belong in the past to our Aramean people, that is, sons of Aram, who are called Suryoye [Syriacs], this people from Syria.

Sr 76 (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to make the edit as there has been no opposition yet. Can you clarify exactly what needs to be changed to what? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please insert the following:

He provides a clear indication of the writers perspective about origins of multiple nations and the reverence of his own Aramean origins that is heavily influenced by his Edessean Schooling.

With the help of God we write down the memory of the kingdoms which belong in the past to our Aramean people, that is, sons of Aram, who are called Suryoye [Syriacs], this people from Syria.

Where?? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

At the very bottom of the "Points of interest" section, thank you.

Sr 76 (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I took out "clear" because that is a subjective word. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

The "Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch" template should be removed as that template is used for patriarchs prior to the formation of the Syriac Orthodox Church and Syriac Orthodox patriarchs are covered by the "Patriarchs of the Syriac Orthodox Church" template. Also, the Category:Syriac people should be replaced with Category:Syrian archbishops and Category:Syrian Oriental Orthodox Christians because, according to John Joseph, "'Syrians' (Suraye/Suroyo) was the name by which the 'Nestorians' and 'Jacobites' called themselves until the post-World War I period". The term "Jacobite" is used to refer to adherents of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Mugsalot (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What does this add to the page and how is it specific to Michael the Syrian? Sr 76 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Content wise, the edit would add nothing. The edit is purely categorical. Category:Syriac people is now a redirect and should have no articles in it, therefore, the Michael the Syrian article should be moved into more appropriate categories. Mugsalot (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly it has nothing to do with the page just opening to change the page into an Assyrian POV platformSr 76 (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You might like to read WP:GF first and foremost. If I was advocating an Assyrian POV, then theoretically wouldn't I request the change to Category:Assyrian people instead? I am requesting that Michael the Syrian be put in the Category:Syrian Christians on the basis of a book, not an agenda. "Syrian" is used to refer to Middle-Eastern Syriac Christians prior to "Assyrian" and "Aramean" nationalism of the 20th century, the article title is indicative of what category the article should be in. Mugsalot (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

there is no point in telling someone to assume WP:GF, and follow it up by trying to Assyrianizing the page.Sr 76 (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Ser Amantio di Nicolao:, however, I have made a mistake in asking the article be put in the Category:Syrian Christians parent category. I think the Michael the Syrian article would be better suited in Category:Syrian archbishops and Category:Syrian Oriental Orthodox Christians, given that he was both an archbishop and an Oriental Orthodox Christian. @Sr 76:, could you please explain how I am "Assyrianizing the page", because I clearly don't know enough about the topic to realise I am. Mugsalot (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done I have adjusted the categories as requested. Sorry for the delay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael the Syrian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141113085119/http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/bulletins/earth/A/1/2/index.html to http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/bulletins/earth/A/1/2/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Michael Rabo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of content

Previous POV edit removed cited information for un-cited, incorrectly-cited, WP:OR, and contentious AI-gen content.

Removed content:

"The second appendix is a treatise on the historical identity of the Syrians, associating them with ancient Near Eastern empires which are the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Arameans." Nearly verbatim from the source; neutral.

"Yet because of the geopolitical circumstances of his era, he felt it necessary to define his people and faith in more nationalistic and secular terms; accordingly, he consistently connected them to the ancient empires of Assyria and Babylonia, identifying their kings as his own ancestors. He used names like "Assyria" (Ātōr), "Nineveh," and "Babylonia" for regions of Mesopotamia, explicitly as ancestral lands rather than mere biblical allusions.[1][18]" Exactly as it appears in the source.

"Michael harmonizes various arguments by linking Syrian history with Aramean and Assyrian histories,[24] citing them as forbearers of the Syriac tradition due to their shared Aramaic language.[21]" Precisely cited as-is with quotes in the citation; neutral.

Added content:

"In Syriac, Āthor ("Assyria") came to denote the city of Mosul. From this usage, the gentilic adjective āthorāyā (Assyrian) was applied to the inhabitants of Mosul. Using the term in this sense, Michael the Syrian referred to Imad al-Din Zengi, the atabeg of Mosul, as an “Assyrian (āthorāyā) pig.”[23]" Mosul being called Assyria is found across the entire medieval and modern Syriac tradition. It is neither unique to Michael nor relevant to the identity discussion (beyond the obvious POV‌ edit). The pig in question is the Turkic Muslim ruler of Mosul who massacred Syriac Christians in Edessa, not an ethnic Assyrian.

"One of the few instances in which the terms “race” or “nation” are explicitly applied to the Syrians appears in this passage. Scholars generally consider the passage to have been written by Michael himself and not connected to Jacob of Edessa." Not relevant.

"Michael the Syrian states that he belongs to the race or nation (umṭo) of the Arameans, who came to be called Syrians (Suryoye) or the people of Syria (bnay Suryā), and that they were descended from Aram." The first part is from a primary source. The second part about being descendants from Aram is untrue. He says that the Assyrians, Babylonians, and other Aramaic-speaking near eastern groups (past & then-present) were "Arameans" strictly linguistically; that a shared communion is established based on shared language. For Michael, they were not the same people genealogically (as the edit claims) but only "metaphorically" (exact word used in scholarship) Syrian. This is what all of scholarship has to say on this matter.

There is extensive research on Michael's anthropology, which (I believe) the article covers everything on it - before it was removed. Original research done based on one of his quotes is erroneous.

Changing all instances of Assyrian genocide to Sayfo further proves my point. Finally, everything is AI-generated. Not only is it WP:OR, it's ChatGPT's OR.

This article as it pertains to the ongoing ACAS‌ discussion is really as neutral as it gets - something I did not even have in mind when I came to expand it. It should not be ruined with yet another case of near-vandalism by consistent POV‌-pushing from what is obviously a meatpuppet off-wiki coordinated attack. Hogshine (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

"The second appendix is a treatise on the historical identity of the Syrians, associating them with ancient Near Eastern empires which are the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Arameans." "Yet because of the geopolitical circumstances of his era, he felt it necessary to define his people and faith in more nationalistic and secular terms; accordingly, he consistently connected them to the ancient empires of Assyria and Babylonia, identifying their kings as his own ancestors. He used names like "Assyria" (Ātōr), "Nineveh," and "Babylonia" for regions of Mesopotamia, explicitly as ancestral lands rather than mere biblical allusions." "Michael harmonizes various arguments by linking Syrian history with Aramean and Assyrian histories,[24] citing them as forbearers of the Syriac tradition due to their shared Aramaic language." None of this information was removed; it was condensed into one paragraph. The references are still intact; hence we read: "He regarded Aramaic as the original and unifying language of the ancient Near East, shared by the kingdoms of Babylonia, Chaldea, Assyria, and the Arameans, and presented the heritage of these kingdoms as belonging to the Syrians as well, in addition to the Syriac Orthodox Church." and "Both Byzantine and Muslim critics mocked the Syriac Christians for "never producing kingdoms," to which Michael countered by citing Babylonia, Assyria, and the Aramean kingdoms as their sovereign ancestors." Regarding the added content: it is not from ChatGPT; it accords with the references, and one can check them for themselves. How is the Imad al-Din Zengi passage not relevant when it is Michael’s own chronicle mentioning it? Nobody has denied that the pig in question was a reference to Imad al-Din Zengi; hence it was written: "In Syriac, Āthor ("Assyria") came to denote the city of Mosul. From this usage, the gentilic adjective āthorāyā (Assyrian) was applied to the inhabitants of Mosul. Using the term in this sense, Michael the Syrian referred to Imad al-Din Zengi, the atabeg of Mosul, as an “Assyrian (āthorāyā) pig.” How is "One of the few instances in which the terms “race” or “nation” are explicitly applied to the Syrians appears in this passage. Scholars generally consider the passage to have been written by Michael himself and not connected to Jacob of Edessa." not relevant in a section about identity and geography? Nation and race concern identity, and it is worth mentioning that Michael’s use of these words is a rare instance in his chronicle. Finally, about "Michael the Syrian states that he belongs to the race or nation (umṭo) of the Arameans, who came to be called Syrians (Suryoye) or the people of Syria (bnay Suryā), and that they were descended from Aram.", no, this is not a primary source. We read the following in Dorothea Weltecke’s Michael the Syrian and Syriac Orthodox Identity: "Things become less clear when we try to decide his position concerning secular and ethnic identity. It is obvious that for Michael the ancient Near East had a very special importance. The ancient Near East recurred in rhe Chronicle. In the heading of his Appendix II Michacl stares: 'With the help of God we write down the memory of the kingdoms which belonged in the past to our Aramean people, that is, sons of Aram, who are called Suryoye, that is people from Syria. This statement seems to be straightforward enough. But compared to other phrases, some contradictions arise." The second reference states: "Michael the Syrian’s arguments that ancient Aramaeans or Syrians spoke Syriac and were descended from Aram..." There has already been a discussion and consensus to change Assyrian genocide to Sayfo per WP:COMMONNAME. Moreover, the following sentence in your version: "Following the Assyrian genocide, the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal See was forcibly relocated from Mardin, Turkey, in 1924..." is not supported by the cited reference; the word Assyrian is not even mentioned there. Your sentence, "This Edessene manuscript remained in Urfa until 1924, when the city's Christian population was expelled in the aftermath of the Assyrian genocide; it was then moved to the Syriac Orthodox church of St. George in Aleppo. The Hill Museum and Manuscript Library digitized it in 2008." is also not supported by the reference given. I will not entertain the accusations you've thrown, but only refer you to WP:GF. Devi van velden (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

As it currently stands, it would be wise for you to entertain my accusations given everything that's happened, including an active SPI against you. We're long past assuming good faith; this is not our first interaction. Moreover, besides the nonconstructive POV edits that keep getting reverted, you tried passing off a fiction novel as academic source (), and another citation () doesn't support your claim. Refer to WP:HONEST, WP:CIR, and WP:V.

None of this information was removed; it was condensed into one paragraph Some of that information was indeed condensed into a paragraph largely dedicated to talking about a different aspect (the 'Aramean' one) with little weight given to the other relevant topics of Michael's identity & geography.

no, this is not a primary source. We read the following in Dorothea Weltecke’s Michael the Syrian and Syriac Orthodox Identity: - Keep reading. "This statement seems to be straightforward enough. But compared to other phrases, some contradictions arise [...] But when he named those descendants of Shem who possess a script he says the following: 'These are the names of the people who have script among the descendants of Shem: Chaldeans, Oturoye, who are the Suryoye, Hebrews, [...] Who are the Suryoye to Michacl: Assyrians or Arameans?" Weltecke goes in depth on Michael's identity politics. What you did is extract Michael's own words (primary source) from Weltecke’s and made a conclusion based on it. There is extensive literature on Michael's identity, you should not be making your own conclusions based on one of Michael's sentence from a gigantic chronicle. A primary source doesn't become a secondary source just because you quote it from a latter, especially when you WP:OR on it. What I have written actually draws from Weltecke as a secondary source, according to what a scholar in the field has affirmed.

How is the Imad al-Din Zengi passage not relevant when it is Michael’s own chronicle mentioning it? Because like I‌ said it's not unique to Michael that Athor = Mosul in some contexts. It can be included, I just don't see it's relevance. A better rephrasing might be: "Like other Syriac authors, Michael refers to the city of Mosul as Athor (Syriac langx; Assyria), as when he called its Turkic atabeg, Imad al-Din Zengi, an "Assyrian pig" after his massacre of Edessan Christians."

Regarding the added content: it is not from ChatGPT Yes it is. There are ways to find out, not to mention the plenty of telltale signs.

not relevant in a section about identity and geography? Nation and race concern identity, and it is worth mentioning that Michael’s use of these words is a rare instance in his chronicle It's not relevant because it references Jacob of Edessa. This is Michael.

Moreover, the following sentence in your version: "Following the Assyrian genocide, the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal See was forcibly relocated from Mardin, Turkey, in 1924..." is not supported by the cited reference; the word Assyrian is not even mentioned there The fact that the patriarchal seat was relocated in 1924 is the cited bit. I understand that the crux of the issue for you here is the A-word. That actually does not need to be cited verbatim; I'm not quoting Weltecke, I'm citing a fact from her (and many other sources; this is an extremely verifiable fact).

Your sentence, "This Edessene manuscript ... digitized it in 2008." is also not supported by the reference given. Same as above and yes it is. Feel free to check.

Sayfo is the common name but Assyrian genocide is also correct. This is not the hill I'm dying on; I brought it up to emphasize the fact that this is nothing more than a POV edit disguised as "Expansion", in line with your other serial POV edits/reverts on Mor Hananyo Monastery, Mor Gabriel Monastery and Jacob of Edessa. If that's the issue here, feel free to change all Assyrian genocide's to Sayfo

This is an altogether inferior edit that serves only to accommodate your POV in a previously neural article re:‌ACAS. Hogshine (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

1. Like I said, always assume good faith.

2. Whatever new or different aspect was raised, it was sourced thoroughly. What is there to add to the other party beyond what is already listed? Yes, the statement (i.e., the quote) seems straightforward enough. We could perhaps include how he also mentioned the Oturoye as Suryoye, and then end with the "Who are the Suryoye to Michael."

3. What conclusion was taken? From what I can see, everything was literal to what is stated in Weltecke’s article. What are the "own conclusions" here? Sure, we can reword it if you’d like, but just because this is a common thing in Syriac literature overall does not override the fact that it is also relevant to Michael. Otherwise, nearly all things would be irrelevant.

4. Again, accusations.

5. It references Jacob of Edessa in context, but it is Michael the Syrian to whom it is connected, with parallels drawn to emphasize that it is not taken from Jacob of Edessa.

6. Right, so for the two passages to be supported by references, you have to remove two words in it, which was WP:OR? We could very well include those passages, just in accordance with the references, because as it was, certain words were not supported.

7. Sayfo is the common name. Assyrian genocide is correct, but so are Aramean, Chaldean, Syriac, etc. There was a discussion on changing Assyrian genocide templates to Sayfo genocide. I think Sayfo is the best to use. Devi van velden (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

References

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Michael the Syrian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hogshine (talk · contribs) 11:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reverosie (talk · contribs) 19:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I will be your GA reviewer. Comments will begin over the weekend! ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 19:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Reverosie, I hope all is well. Just checking if we're still on this? No problem if not. Hogshine (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, I am still working on this review. I'm so sorry it has taken so long! The spot check is going smoothly and should be done today or tomorrow :) ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 22:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Please take as much time as you need. I just thought I did something wrong, this is my first GA submission Thanks Hogshine (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The spot check is now complete! It looks good. Allow me to post my procedure for the review below ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 20:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Procedure

My procedure will go like this: I will go in and copyedit the article myself. Instead of pointing out small gripes that I could easily fix without nagging you, my suggestions will focus on larger issues where your input and expertise are needed. If I do not have any of these suggestions, the article will be quick passed. If I do have suggestions, I will pass the article when they are dealt with accordingly.

You will have as much time as you need to fix my suggestions (if I have any), but if you go multiple weeks without making any progress (and do not give me a reason as to why), I may have to fail you. ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 20:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to fix whatever issues you may come across, big and small, within 1-3 days. I've combed through this article word by word for days looking for errors and I'd love any chance to improve it, so do let me know; it won't be naggy. Your efforts are much appreciated! Hogshine (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

For the most part, this article is ready for GA status. However, the article's lead is too short, and needs to encompass every part of the article. A paragraph about Michael's life and patriarchate must be added to the lead. ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 23:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

How does it look now, and does it need anything else? Thanks. Hogshine (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

You certainly weren't lying when you said you spent days combing through each word of this article. I've found nothing I feel as though I need to change. This article is absolutely ready for GA status, and it will be the 100th crusades-related GA!

I'd like to commend you on your work here and encourage you to keep contributing to Wikipedia, for you've certainly made a positive impact here :) (May I also suggest nominating this article for FA status in the future?)

Congratulations! ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 16:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 2025

@777network Note that your latest revert () was not in good faith. You have been thoroughly warned about this a total of six times . Once again, you need to establish consensus before you push in your edit once it's contested. Hogshine (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

As this is about the same reason as Bar Hebraeus, I'll just CC the reply I did there here as well:

Hogshine, the issue here is POV. You're not objecting to the content based on Wikipedia guidelines but rather personal bias, as was seen on Asilvering's talk page, when both Asilvering and a non-involved editor (copyright checker) noticed that the reason you objected to the content was to get a "opponent" out of the topic area, as well as POV.

If you're objecting to my additions to the article, I might as well object to your version which does not lift up the additions I added. Do you see in what kind of endless circle we end up in?

You first objected to my additions because of copyvio reasons, now that it's been fixed, you're referring to WP:BRD, which in fact, also has a WP:BRD-NOT section clearly outlining the issue here. 777network (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Not quite. I objected to the content in addition to the copyvio. Hence this talk page post and multiple reversions. The opponent-ejecting was an aspersion with no evidence. You cannot keep using Asilvering's talk page as a get-out-of-jail-free card to run amok, especially when on that page, multiple times, it was pointed out to you that you need to undo your edits & establish consensus + . Let's not pretend that you don't have a POV, especially when you replaced ACAS-neutral sections with more charged words. Generally I would not accuse anyone of POV-pushing if I were you:
So far, your contributions to this encyclopedia have either been POV-pushing, rule-breaking, or gaming the system to rack up edit counts. I don't think real "scholars" as you self-proclaimed wholly use ChatGPT to write their works.

If consensus is not reached you will be reverted (again). Hogshine (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I won’t even entertain a discussion about POV when one part is denying to push a POV when it’s transparently clear, as seen by others. I believe all editors have a POV. You’ve still not stated what exactly you’re “contesting,” start by doing that so we can reach something. 777network (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The part I want to keep is as neutral as it gets when it comes to the ACAS issue. You want include poorly written AI-generated niche opinions contrary to scholarly consensus while removing well-cited authorities on the matter. The fact that you still haven't undone your edits, tried falsely framing me for breaking my warning then proceeded to break it yourself , shows how bad faith you've been throughout all this.

You've entertained POV accusations on your talk page alone enough, let alone through other edits. Hogshine (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

So your neutral part is so conveniently enough excluding the very well referenced sentences where he identifies as an Aramean? If everything is backed by references, your issue relies on POV rather than reliability. I’ve not removed any context of Assyrians or Chaldeans in this version. 777network (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

It's difficult to follow up with the sources when you removed the well-cited Sfns and ref'd the whole work.

You removed these sentences:

•Yet because of the geopolitical circumstances of his era, he felt it necessary to define his people and faith in more nationalistic and secular terms; accordingly, he consistently connected them to the ancient empires of Assyria and Babylonia, identifying their kings as his own ancestors. He used names like "Assyria" (Ātōr), "Nineveh," and "Babylonia" for regions of Mesopotamia, explicitly as ancestral lands rather than mere biblical allusions
You alluded to this in the next paragraph, but you stick a "However" after it, despite it not being a contrasting statement. Following is a niche opinion mentioned in passing contrary to established scholarly consensus on general Assyrian continuity, let alone on Michael specifically by authoritative scholars like Dorothea Weltecke and Amir Harrak.

•Michael harmonizes various arguments by linking Syrian history with Aramean and Assyrian histories, citing them as forbearers of the Syriac tradition due to their shared Aramaic language.
This is removed altogether.

This sentence: "however, he considered the Assyrians to be descendants of the Arameans" is found in the source (the work you cited is the same as another already in the article, but found as part of a book), but the sentence preceding it ("Michael raised the question of whether the Syrians should be regarded as Assyrians or Arameans") isn't. This is WP:SYNTH

"POV" is not "Whatever I disagree with". You need to learn that this is a contentious topic and such discussions will need to happen. I'm sure this is totally coincidental, but this is the same discussion about the same added content (verbatim!) I‌ had with the banned meat/sock puppets above. Hogshine (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I've not removed it, I've condensed it into this part:

"He regarded Aramaic as the original and unifying language of the ancient Near East, shared by the kingdoms of Babylonia, Chaldea, Assyria, and the Arameans, and presented the heritage of these kingdoms as belonging to the Syrians as well, in addition to the Syriac Orthodox Church."

Here is the second part you referenced:

"He uses names like "Assyria" (Ātōr), "Nineveh," and "Babylonia" for Mesopotamian regions not necessarily drawn from the Old Testament but possibly reflecting an awareness of these as ancestral lands, and he explicitly distinguishes Mosul, Nineveh, and Assyria." I have no issues with removing the "however."

About the question Michael raised, the source states this:

"Who are the Suryoye to Michael: Assyrians or Arameans? While it is painful for outspoken Arameans to be identified with the Assyrians, one has to bear in mind, that, following Jacob of Edessa, Michael also supports the hypothesis that the Assyrians are descendants of the Arameans."

If your issue is with the "Michael raised the question of whether the Syrians should be regarded as Assyrians or Arameans" part, let it be known that it is what the source is implying; who are the Suryoye to Michael? If the wording is an issue, we can restructure it.

Slight changes in wording is required if new content is going to be added, please see Asilvering's response; "If you are unwilling to accept even minor changes in wording, you will not last long in this CTOP." 777network (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

You cannot keep appealing to that talk page like it's scripture. It might help you to read it yourself given how many instructions were given to you that you totally ignored, as I pointed out, including the word-changing one you just quoted. Good faith was assumed and handed to you on a silver plate, but you've proven otherwise.

The phrasing is not an issue (although it should be changed to match the article style, remove AI content, and fix citations), it's the content itself.

I suggest the following entry:

< Yet because of the geopolitical circumstances of his era, he felt it necessary to define his people and faith in more nationalistic and secular terms; accordingly, he consistently connected them to the ancient empires of Assyria, Babylonia, identifying their kings as his own ancestors. He used names like "Assyria" (Ātōr), "Nineveh," and "Babylonia" for regions of Mesopotamia, explicitly as ancestral lands rather than mere biblical allusions. In his account, an "empire of our language and our script" had existed until the time of Cyrus the Persian, and the preservation of this language demonstrated the historical continuity of the Syrians. Michael also used the common designation for Mosul "Assyria" as it was common at the time, such as when referring to its Turkic governor as "Assyrian pig".
The Melkites (Aramaic-speaking Syrians who followed the Council of Chalcedon after imperial pressure) were disparagingly labeled "Greeks" rather than Syrians. Both Byzantine and Muslim critics mocked the Syriac Christians for "never producing kingdoms," to which Michael countered by citing Assyria, Babylonia, and and Aramean kingdoms as their sovereign ancestors. He also maintained that the Assyrians were descendants of Arameans.
Attributed to Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), transmitted via Dionysius of Tell-Mahre (d. 945), and later adopted by Michael, the Syriac account reframes ancient history to claim powerful "Syrian" kingdoms east and west of the Euphrates. Michael emphasized the historical significance of the "Syrian" kingdoms that existed on both sides of the Euphrates, using this narrative to assert his people's historical sovereignty despite lacking contemporary kings. He portrayed the Seleucids as local Syrian kings, viewing them as restorers of native royalty after Alexander's conquest of Persia. Despite Alexander being Greek, he was considered native, contributing to a hybrid Syrian identity characterized by Aramaic language and Greek cultural influences. Michael harmonizes various arguments by linking Syrian history with Aramean and Assyrian histories, citing them as forbearers of the Syriac tradition due to their shared Aramaic language.

Hogshine (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Your proposed version omits the sentence where Michael the Syrian explicitly states how he identifies himself (Aramean), which is supported by numerous sources.

It was not only Assyria and Babylonia but also Chaldea and the Aramean kingdoms, as shown in Weltecke’s source.

Saying “explicitly as ancestral lands rather than mere biblical allusions” overstates the case; the source says “possibly from his awareness…,” which is more tentative.

Regarding Imad al-Zengi, you leave out key details, including Imad al-Zengi himself and the note that the gentilic adjective āthorāyā (Assyrian) was applied to the inhabitants of Mosul.

For the statement “He also maintained that the Assyrians were descendants of Arameans,” it should be made clear that this was posed as a question. The source asks who the Syrians were according to Michael.

You also omit that Michael’s Chronicle provides no evidence of an Assyrian identity, records no memory among other Christians of the ancient kingdoms we discussed earlier, and indicates they would have been horrified by such an association. These points are essential when we are describing identity.

Your version basically want to eliminate him being Aramean and him not proving an Assyrian identity of his time. We must present all significant viewpoints, please see WP:DUE. If you think there is WP:UNDUE, please state what you think we should give more weight to. 777network (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Michael the Syrian explicitly states how he identifies himself (Aramean), which is supported by numerous sources. It actually isn't at all. This is what happens when you use ChatGPT to write your articles for you and that alone is revert-worthy, alongside other things. Again and again, your version is still not undone, reflecting your bad faith.

It was not only Assyria and Babylonia but also Chaldea and the Aramean kingdoms Michael uniquely used "Chaldean" as a collective noun for both Assyria and Babylonia; that can be added. Aramean kingdoms are already mentioned when the source does.

Saying “explicitly as ancestral lands rather than mere biblical allusions... Dr. Amir Harrak, same author of the 2019 work, explicitly says, "In 1195, the geographical map of Michael the Syrian reflects his Assyrian ethnic identity."

should be made clear that this was posed as a question The "question" is a rhetorical question by the author Weltecke, not by Michael himself. In fact it says "While it is painful for outspoken Arameans to be identified with the Assyrians, [...] Michael also supports the hypothesis that the Assyrians are descendants of the Arameans."

You also omit that Michael’s Chronicle provides no evidence of an Assyrian identity... I talked about this earlier. This is a fringe opinion mentioned in passing contrary to established scholarly consensus on general Assyrian continuity, let alone on Michael specifically by authoritative scholars like Dorothea Weltecke and Amir Harrak.

want to eliminate him being Aramean and him not proving an Assyrian identity The original version before your contention was already extremely neutral re:ACAS (setting your POV allegations as baseless). It is you who wants to shoehorn poorly-written AI content that contradict established scholarly consensus. I'm willing to compromise in the face of bad faith, but there's nothing I can do if you're not. Hogshine (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Enough with the AI slanders. This is supported by the sources. Reference 53 states: “says that he belongs to the race or nation of the Arameans who have come to be called Syrians…”; and reference 51 states: “With the help of God we write down the memory of the kingdoms which belonged in the past to our Aramean people, that is, sons of Aram…”

The second point is not disputed, so all four should be mentioned.

Regarding the other source, it says “possibly from his awareness …”. We can combine this cautiously and write “as ancestral lands,” without using “explicitly,” and without overstating certainty. On the question you raised from Michael’s Chronicle: the issue is framed as a question in the secondary source, which led Weltecke to pose it. The current version reflects that nuance with “he considered the Assyrians to be descendants of the Arameans.”

Assyrian continuity is not the topic here; we are discussing Michael’s Chronicle directly. The source cites Michael’s work, stating: “Michael declared that no memory of the biblical kingdoms of Assyria and Chaldea had survived among the Christians of the Middle East,” and “the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian … provides excellent evidence that no such identity existed.” We are not discussing other works, authors, or chronicles; see WP:RELEVANCE.

If your “neutral” version omits the Aramean material entirely, that itself creates WP:UNDUE weight. The aim is WP:DUE: include all significant, well-sourced viewpoints. I’m fine with adjusting phrasing, fix the “explicitly/possibly” line, add the Chaldean kingdoms as you agreed, and remove the “however.” If we make those changes, what remains in dispute other than your wish to remove the sourced Aramean identification and the sourced Assyrian rejection?

I’ve tolerated your repeated attacks. Stop bashing me with “AI,” “POV,” or “bad faith” in every response you do. 777network (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not my concern what you tolerate when it's true, you keep doing it, and you keep saying it to me. If you're going to get emotional with every single disagreement, maybe this place isn't for you.

“With the help of God we write down the... This is a primary source from Michael himself. We have much literature on his identity politics and we cannot use a direct sentence from the subject itself. Moreover, that's a different citation than what is cited to it; citation 52 doesn't support what the text before it says. AI will do that.

I made the case for everything else already. Take it or leave it. Hogshine (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Stop with your allegations, I've told you twice now. Also, don't say "when it's true..."

One of the sources does not quote Michael directly, rather explains that Michael states he is Aramean, the other source fully quotes him.

For the quote, we are using a secondary source to access a primary source. It's not our own interpretation of that primary source, it is the scholars, who's verified it and translated it. With the support from reference 53.

What do you mean with take it or leave it? This is not how consensus works, it's not your way or the highway. 777network (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Stop with your allegations, I've told you twice now. Also, don't say "when it's true..." I'll stop when it stops being the case, @777network. I'm not bashing you with these; you need to learn how to be less emotional in these discussions. The mere fact that your edits are still not undone proves my point about your disruptive behavior.

A primary source remains a primary source even if quoted from a secondary source. I know what you're referring to despite not being properly cited - in another passage Michael says the Syrians are Assyrians. This is why we have so much literature on Michael's identity politics; you are not WP:RS

What do you mean with take it or leave it? Meaning I've already made my point earlier in response to yours, and repeating it is futile. I've explained why each addition is appropriate or not. Everything has been addressed. Hogshine (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Like I said above; one may be primary, but the other isn’t a primary source. It’s not quoting the original work, rather explains it (ref 53), reference 52 also supports the descent from Aram, they back up the primary source. You’re relying the removal of Michael identifying as an Aramean because of “primary sources,” yet two aren’t primary, one is, the others are secondary sources.

As for the allegations, this is the last time I’m going to tell you to stop with them. You don’t get to throw them every response you do and claim they’re true and that you’ll stop when “it stops being the case.” It’s not about being emotional, it’s about knowing where the line is drawn. Also, if I am emotional about it, I have every right to. 777network (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Being threatening is not a good look (see WP:THREATEN). Admitting that you're taking this emotionally does not help your case either.

52 is still a primary source; Muriel Debié is quoting Michael directly without expanding on what's being said. 53, for the third time, does not say anything - it talks about Philoxenus of Mabbug. Since you're adamant about not using AI, the other explanation is that this is WP:DISHONESTY.

Everything has been addressed. Please don't repeat yourself further. Hogshine (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Reference 53;

“…Michael the Great says that he belongs to the race or nation (umtā) of the Arameans who have come to be called Syrians (suryāyē) or people of Syria (bnay suryā).⁴⁷ This is one of the few instances where the word ‘race’ or ‘nation’ is used for the Syrians. The title, contrary to most of the Appendix itself, appears to have nothing to do with Jacob of Edessa but to have been added by Michael himself. This could be evidence that by the time of Michael the Syrians considered themselves an ethnos, which was not the case before, perhaps as a consequence of contact with the Byzantines and the Franks.” 777network (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

That is not what is cited to 53 and it was addressed. Please don't repeat yourself further.
I will again propose the mutual compromise above but with additional modifications:

Yet because of the geopolitical circumstances of his era, he felt it necessary to define his people and faith in more nationalistic and secular terms; accordingly, he consistently connected them to the ancient empires of Assyria, Babylonia, identifying their kings as his own ancestors. He used names like "Assyria" (Ātōr), "Nineveh," and "Babylonia" for regions of Mesopotamia as potential references to his ancestral lands rather than mere biblical allusions. In his account, an "empire of our language and our script" had existed until the time of Cyrus the Persian, and the preservation of this language demonstrated the historical continuity of the Syrians. Michael also used "Assyria" to refer to Mosul as it was common at the time among Syriac Christians, such as when referring to its Turkic atabeg (governor), Imad al-Din Zengi, as an "Assyrian pig".

The Melkites (Aramaic-speaking Syrians who followed the Council of Chalcedon after imperial pressure) were disparagingly labeled "Greeks" rather than Syrians. Both Byzantine and Muslim critics mocked the Syriac Christians for "never producing kingdoms," to which Michael countered by citing Aramean kingdoms, Assyria, and Babylonia as their sovereign ancestors, the latter two collectively termed "Chaldeans" by Michael. He also maintained that the Assyrians were descendants of Arameans.

Attributed to Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), transmitted via Dionysius of Tell-Mahre (d. 945), and later adopted by Michael, the Syriac account reframes ancient history to claim powerful "Syrian" kingdoms east and west of the Euphrates. Michael emphasized the historical significance of the "Syrian" kingdoms that existed on both sides of the Euphrates, using this narrative to assert his people's historical sovereignty despite lacking contemporary kings. He portrayed the Seleucids as local Syrian kings, viewing them as restorers of native royalty after Alexander's conquest of Persia. Despite Alexander being Greek, he was considered native, contributing to a hybrid Syrian identity characterized by Aramaic language and Greek cultural influences. Michael harmonizes various arguments by linking Syrian history with Aramean and Assyrian histories, citing them as forbearers of the Syriac tradition due to their shared Aramaic language.

Hogshine (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Open reference 53 and read it yourself. You are very quick to object to an Aramean mention that is sourced. What exactly is misquoted here? You first claimed that reference 53 was about Philoxenus of Mabbug, now what is the issue?

{{Tq|“In his Chronicle, Michael the Syrian states that he belongs to the Aramean race or nation (umṭo), that is, the descendants of Aram who later came to be known as Syrians (Sūryōyē), a name that, according to Michael, the Greeks used for the Arameans.”}}

Reference 52 supports the descent from Aram, stating that “Michael the Syrian’s arguments that ancient Aramaeans or Syrians spoke Syriac and were descended from Aram” and that “Michael the Syrian (twelfth century) also traced the lineage of the Aramaeans (Syrians) to Aram...” (p. 167).

Reference 53 supports the statement that Michael says he belongs to the Aramean race, that is, Syrians: “Michael the Great says that he belongs to the race or nation (umtā) of the Arameans who have come to be called Syrians (suryāyē) or people of Syria (bnay suryā).”

Reference 51 supports the claim about the Greeks: “Michael explains the change of name of ancient Near Eastern people and empires through changes by the Greeks: ‘The Arameans were called Syrians by the Greeks and the Oturoye were called Assyrians.’”

Again, your version omits the references where Michael’s Chronicle states that any memory of the Assyrian or Chaldean kingdoms had disappeared among Middle Eastern Christians, that his work does not support an Assyrian identity, and that locals would have been terrified of such an association. Assyrian continuity article is irrelevant to this article and to Michael’s Chronicle.

If the problem is simply where the references are placed, then we can move them to the most relevant sentences. The content itself is accurate and clearly sourced, and that is an easy fix, not a valid reason to remove the material. 777network (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)