Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church#Revertion

Under Leadership -> Priests The sentence "There is an honorary rank among the priests that are Corepiscopos who has the privileges of "first among the priests" and is given a chain with a cross and specific vestment decorations. Corepiscopos is the highest rank a married man can be elevated to in the Syriac Orthodox Church."

Can it be simplified to: Corepiscopos is an honorary rank given to unmarried priests. A corespiscops has the privileges of "first among the priests" and is given a chain with a cross and specific vestment decorations. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'm moving forward with it. CF-501 Falcon (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:@CF-501 Falcon I have just copyedited the entire article. I can pretty much say that this article is 95% free from typographic errors and incorrect sentence structures. Just need to remove unwanted wikilinks here and there. Do you have anything other than this?

:Cheers! Warriorglance (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::While your edits were in Good faith, they did change the meaning of some portions. Most notably removing the diaconate rank. In the future A) Discuss such changes with references and B) Maybe make your more serious changes in a separate edit. If you follow be all of your work won't get reverted. You did a good job fixing some of the errors, don't be discouraged. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Concerning the edit at the deaconate rank, It is already given that 'priest'(Kasheesho) is the 7th and the last rank in that particular section 'Priest' of the article.

:::Also, I did not find any reference about a 'high deacon'. A 'half deacon' progresses towards a 'full deacon'.

:::I will find suitable references about the priest being the 7th rank and I will post the same in the coming days.

:::Cheers! Warriorglance (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with you. I have never heard of a high deacon. However as you are doing, we need citations so we can change it. Good luck! CF-501 Falcon (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I have also restored the rest of my edits which are not considered as major edits.

:::Warriorglance (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@CF-501 Falcon If your editing is over, lets perheps submit this article for review. Do you have anything left to do in the article? Warriorglance (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::@Warriorglance, My editing is not over. However I find myself lacking time to do much. If you wish we can submit the article for peer review but, I feel there is more we can do before that. I will write thing we should address first in my opinion in the sandbox. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Writing just in case some editor (like me) gets confused. @Pbritti, @Warriorglance and @Jstalins.

Can we agree on using AD/BC instead of AD/CE or BCE/CE? See the discussion at the article for Jesus. Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Halershes The sentence you added in the lead section is unclear which is:

The Syriac Orthodox Church comprises 26 archdioceses and 13 patriarchal vicariates. It also has an autonomous maphrianate in India, Jacobite Syrian Christian Church, consisting of an additional 22 archdioceses and 13 patriarchal vicariates.

Are you suggesting that Jacobite Syrian Church has 22 archdioceses and 13 patriarchal vicariates? Warriorglance(talk to me) 05:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah Halershes (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::But, We are not talking about the dioceses of Jacobite Syrian Church. We are talking about the archdioceses of the Syriac Orthodox Church as a whole. Also, I can't find any patriarchal vicariates in the Jacobite Syrian Church as given in the [https://www.malankara.com/constitution_of_Syriac_orthodox_church.html Constitution]. The only archdiocese which is administered by an archbishop in India is the Knanaya Archdiocese in Kerala. So, I think the dioceses of the Jacobite church should best be mentioned in the Jacobite Syrian Church article as mentioning it here would cause confusion among the readers. Cheers, Warriorglance(talk to me) 08:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::@CF-501 Falcon What is your opinion on this matter? Warriorglance(talk to me) 17:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with @Warriorglance. This article is about the Syriac Orthodox Church not the Jacobite Syrian Church. As Wariorglance says we should only list the archdioceses. There is a separate article to list all the dioceses.

:::If you, @Halershes, insist on adding it. Add it to the subsection for the JSC. It must be sourced, or it will be removed.

:::Me and Warriorglance are making this a GA. We are aiming to have a source for every claim. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 17:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I get your point. JSC Church is an integral part of the Syriac Orthodox Church, so the dioceses are a part of the Syriac Orthodox Church. I can remove it for now. I support your guys initiative to make this GA.

::::This website is a bit outdated, but its the official website of the JSC church gives the list of 21 of the dioceses. https://www.jacobitesyrianchurch.org/diocese.html. The 22nd is the Malankara Archdiocese of Australia that was established last year by the Holy Synod, but the website is very out of date. https://masoca.org.au/. I can't find an official source on the Patriarchal Vicariates, but I can try to get one. Halershes (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Halershes, Thank you! If you would like to help us, we can always use an extra hand. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Warriorglance, I have added {{Citation needed|date=March 2025}} tags for the last claims that need references. Once those are replaced, we can move on and submit for peer review or GA.

Additionally, I think that all/most of the information about member should either be collected into the Demography section or split into the respective countries. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 17:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:All right! Will try to replace it. Cheers, Warriorglance(talk to me) 02:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Wlaak, I thought I should explain why I reverted your changes.

A) I would ask that such changes are proposed on the talk page first; to be clear you didn't do anything wrong, this is just WP:BRD. I may be in the wrong. Feel free to start a discussion.

B) Considering the ANI thread(s), it may be better to leave such changes out until consensus is reached. This is not personal, I reverted @Surayeproject3, when they added a Assyrian culture template.

@Georgiosiravos, You were also reverted in the mass revert. While I personally feel that the older version was fine, if you want you may reinstate your changes. Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:_{Pinging editors which heavily contribute: @Warriorglance, @Halershes, @Pbritti and @Jstalins. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)}

:ahh okay, thank you for being understanding and letting me know, yes i saw that revert you did on the Assyrian culture template, thanks a lot for doing so!

:i'll wait until the ANI is settled and then create a discussion regarding my edits i wanted to implement, if no sanctions are taken on me from the ANI.

:thanks for your contributions on the Syriac Orthodox Church article. Wlaak (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::No problem. To be clear, I am not holding the ANI things against you (or any other editor). The admins will decide what is the best course of action. Additionally, If the sanctions are implemented you can message me any suggestions you have (unless you are strictly prohibited from discussion on wiki about Assyrians). Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::amazing, thanks. Wlaak (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Wlaak Please do not remove WikiProject Assyria from any articles on the Syriac Orthodox Church. The posting has been there from 2007 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syriac_Orthodox_Church&oldid=101120537] and has stayed without any problems, so what is the point of removing it? Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Surayeproject3, age doesn't mean anything, certainly not consensus. @Wlaak was well within his rights to remove it, They were bold, you reverted, now discuss it politely.

:::::Regarding Assyria, if we cannot reach a consensus on adding the template(s), I will start an RfC. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 20:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@CF-501 Falcon Relax, I'm not trying to start anything or discuss that template I added some time ago. I'm just trying to gauge his reasoning, which he can argue while I argue mine. Age clearly has to mean something if the WP:Assyria assessment has never been removed, not to mention a peer review [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Syriac_Orthodox_Church/archive3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1190739185] from November 2023. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Surayeproject3, Thank you. Age still doesn't mean anything. The peer review checks the article content not the talk page. I am not disagreeing with either of you nor agreeing with either. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Surayeproject3 how does WikiProject Assyria who's goal is to "neutralize the point of view on articles related to Assyria and the Assyrian people" relate to the Syriac Orthodox Church who officially rejected anything Assyrian related (language and community wise) in 1952?

:::::I am failing to see how such a WikiProject relates to a Church. Syria is relevant as this is where the Patriarchate is located, religion and Christianity are obvious ones that touch on the Syriac Orthodox Church article. Wlaak (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Wlaak This is inherently part of the content dispute at ANI, from your end and from my end, so I will just be succinct here. There is very clearly a connection to Assyrians with the Syriac Orthodox Church, Ignatius Aphrem I was a head of the Assyro-Chaldean delegation before the Simele Massacre, and in the identity section, it is stated that parishes in the US used the Assyrian designation before the 1950s. Not to mention, several Syriac Orthodox activists such as Naum Faiq and Farid Nazha from the time of Seyfo advocated Assyrian nationalism and identity. A change in the patriarchite's stance on identity does not and will not change that.

::::::By your logic, all of the other churches that are practiced in the Assyrian community have to be removed from the assessments of WikiProject Assyria even when they are stated to have Assyrian origins or flat out use the name "Assyrian" in them. Why is the Chaldean Catholic Church, whose patriarchite rejects Assyrian identity, included in the WP assessments? It's because the church has origins from the Church of the East and its adherents are ethnic Assyrians, even if it's contested between Chaldean and Assyrian. The Syriac Orthodox Church also has those origins, even if it's contested between Assyrian and Aramean. If the church rejects Assyrian identity, that is a point of dispute for article content, not for a WikiProject assessment. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Mor Ignatius Aphrem I wrote an entire book on the history of the Church, and on page 43 he clearly denied any connection to anything Assyrian-related. Parishes in the U.S. only used the name for political reasons, and it was later changed back to the original by the same Patriarch who represented the Church at the Paris Peace Conference.

:::::::There are "activists" in every Church. In the same way, there were two Patriarchs in the Chaldean Catholic Church who once supported an Aramean identity. But that doesn’t connect them to each other. If we followed that logic, then every article with even the slightest connection would fall under some WikiProject.

:::::::In reality, the WikiProject doesn’t seem relevant when the articles are about Churches. It doesn't make sense to talk about “neutralizing POV” about a people in that context.

:::::::The Syriac Orthodox Church has always upheld an Aramean identity, from the time of Mor Ephrem up to the current Patriarch. Just because there has been some influx of other nationalities doesn’t mean there’s a reason to include a WikiProject aimed at balancing views about a people. Melkites were once Syriac Orthodox, and Mor Severus was Greek, but those small influences didn’t lead to entire WikiProjects focused on neutralizing views about them in Church articles.

:::::::It is pretty obvious by reading the goal of WikiProject:Assyria that it is in no way beneficial or relevant in an article about a Church. Wlaak (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Surayeproject3 and @Wlaak. I would ask that you link some references to back up the claims. Again, If you cannot come to a consensus we can ask the community. Having the WikiProject banner/template doesn't mean that they own the article. It just lists that this article is important to that group of editors. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Of course, so the only claims I made that could need references would be the two Chaldean patriarchs promoting a Aramean identity, see [https://web.archive.org/web/20220311024009/https://saint-adday.com/?p=8321 this] for Chaldean Patriarch Louis Sako (stating that the Syriacs, Chaldeans and Assyrians are all Arameans in heritage) and [https://web.archive.org/web/20111002212353/http://www.ankawa.com/forum/index.php/topic,233591.msg3421260.html#msg3421260 this] for Patriarch Emmanuel III Delly, who says: "However, I affirm that we, the Chaldeans, Assyrians, and Syriacs, are one people called the Aramean people."

::::::::The other would be the much more relevant one, the Syriac Orthodox Church itself rejecting anything Assyrian related, see this. It is written:

::::::::"Now as for using the word “Assyrian’ ’for the language and the com¬ munity, it contradicts

::::::::1. The truth in History.

::::::::2. The old tradition kept by our scholars.

::::::::3. The universal recognition of our community over all the world.

::::::::4. The agreement of all the Western scholars in France, England, Italy, U.S.A.

::::::::...

::::::::In conclusion, the Syrians have no interest whatsoever in taking to themselves this strange name which will make them lose their race, their ecclesiastical support which is their unique and sole means of existence in the world."

::::::::And of course, this does not mean that a WikiProject should not be on a article, as said WikiProject could indeed be of interest to them, however, when it comes to WikiProject Assyria, who's goal is to "neutralize the point of view on articles related to Assyria and the Assyrian people", I am failing to see how the Syriac Orthodox Church, being a Church, not a people nor writing of a ethnic POV/exclusive adherence is of relevance to WikiProject Assyria, it's a Church, not a article about people. Wlaak (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Wlaak, Thank you for the sources. I would argue that the first one isn't really enough proof. But the second, and especially the third (from a late patriarch of the SOC) is enough. I will suggest waiting till @Surayeproject3 posts his references. I can actually add what you gave to the article! Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Here are some sources that I'd like to cite.

:::::::::* [https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=fcas_fp] - Ethno-cultural and Religious Identity of Syrian Orthodox Christians by Dr. Sargon Donabed and Shamiran Mako discusses the identity of the adherents of the Syriac Orthodox Church between Assyrian and Aramean. On page 75, it's written "However, in the sense of being part of a greater ethnic community, it is apparent that those who consider themselves ‘Assyrian’ share this in common with others outside of their ecclesiastic sect whereas ‘Aramean’ is almost solely representative of Syrian Orthodox Christians. ‘Assyrian’, in this sense, is both a foundation and an outlet for the creation of a cohesive identity by which secular members (and originally clergy) of the Syrian Orthodox Church identify with." This book also showcases several instances where formerly pro-Assyrian clergy began to adopt an anti-Assyrian stance, in the appendices at the back of the text.

:::::::::* [https://www.scribd.com/document/774403789/Hostages-in-the-Homeland-Orphans-in-the-Diaspora-Identity-Discourses-Among-the-AssyrianSyriac-Elites-in-the-European-Diaspora] - Hostages in the Homeland, Orphans in the Diaspora is a book/article by Naures Atto which discusses the discourse of Assyrian versus Aramean identity within the Assyrian diaspora, where the Syriac Orthodox Church has communities. Page 180 of the PDF (156 of the book) I've put discusses the use of the Assyrian name within the SOC, dating back to the 19th century.

:::::::::* Several Syriac Christian traditions that are venerated in the Syriac Orthodox Church and the West Syriac rites, such as the Doctrine of Mar Addai [https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/addai_2_text.htm] and the Rogation of the Ninevites, not only make mention of Assyrians but are connected to the history of ancient Assyria by geography. I can provide more of these if asked.

:::::::::Here are some extra sources and points to take into account that are not of a scholarly nature, but still affirm the Assyrian identity of the church.

:::::::::* [https://www.instagram.com/p/DHt-in-Nirf/?img_index=2&igsh=MTM3cHdwbTJrenR3ZQ==] - Mor Maurice, who is Archbishop of the Church in Al-Hasakah governorate of Syria, recently declared the Assyrian New Year, Akitu, a public holiday for all SOC private schools

:::::::::* Several Syriac Orthodox Suryoye originally from Turkey and Syria, such as Attiya Gamri, George Aslan, Ninos Aho, Nouri Iskandar, and more have openly espoused Assyrian identity. These are just some examples of certain figures after having expanded these articles.

:::::::::* As I've previously mentioned, two figures of Assyrian nationalism, Naum Faiq and Farid Nazha, were both Syriac Orthodox - [https://theassyrianjournal.com/2020/05/17/how-long-distance-nationalism-kept-a-culture-alive-during-the-assyrian-genocide/]

:::::::::* The Assyrian flag that was used by the Paris Peace conference was originally created by Syriac Orthodox Christians from Tur Abdin [https://www.auaf.us/blog/the-history-and-meaning-behind-the-assyrian-flag/]. This flag was also used by Syriac Orthodox Assyrians in Massachussets [https://deadmanmax.medium.com/1927-a-letter-from-abraham-k-yousuf-to-the-syriac-orthodox-patriarch-mar-ignatius-elias-iii-d9729a4cd664], and in fact, a letter from Barsoum himself mentioned in the previous link states "laying before the conference the sufferings and the wishes of our ancient Assyrian nation — ”

:::::::::As you can see, there are clearly enough sources to affirm that Assyrian identity is affiliated with the Syriac Orthodox Church in past and present, outside of what is already discussed in the article. It does not matter whether historically one identity was used over another or not, the WP assessment should stay because at a certain point in time, the church did identify with the Assyrian name and to this day still does. The tag doesn't detract from the page's content, and by removing it, it neglects a significant portion of the church and its history. Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Surayeproject3 and @Wlaak, Thank you for the sources. Note: People who are in the church identifying as Assyrian doesn't mean the church is.

::::::::::Proposal: Keep the talk page banner. I see enough evidence that the church is in interest to the WikiProject.

::::::::::Regarding the article, I think there is enough clarity right now. @Surayeproject3 If you disagree you can add a very short bit from an academic/reliable source under what I added yesterday. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 16:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@CF-501 Falcon I agree with the proposal. Later today I can add some clarification about the identity under Barsoum's quote and we can discuss whether or not it should be changed. I'd love to help expand this article in the future if you'd have me on board with efforts to do so. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I am opposing this proposal, see my latest comment in this thread. Wlaak (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Wlaak @Surayeproject3, it seems we cannot agree. I will give it a day to see if any other editors weigh in. After that, I will start start an RfC. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::@CF-501 Falcon I just made some edits using two of the sources I listed, one academic and one non-academic (the Assyrian Journal article). Feel free to take a look and let me know what you think.

::::::::::::Also, I wouldn't recommend starting an RfC until the ANI is settled or there is a consensus regarding the naming dispute. This is ultimately part of a larger content dispute that most likely won't be solved until a larger consensus is applied, so I would wait for a bit while this is still being discussed. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Regarding the latest addition, it seems very POV to include that after the Simele massacre, Mor Ignatius Aphrem I became "anti-Assyrian", first of all, that is a bold statement to call someone, and secondly, there is no confirmed evidence on this, its mostly speculation, and the source is from a Assyrian himself, Sargon Donabed, whos been used to reference only the Assyrian parts of this article, seems to contradict the WP:RS non bias. Mor Ignatius Aphrem I rejected the Assyrian name 20 years after the Simele massacre, in his book, he explains why he rejected it, and it was not because of the Simele massacre according to himself, rather due to the history of the Church, in his book he quotes numerous authors of the Syriac Orthodox Church all attesting a Aramean identity.

:I'd suggest the part I wrote, before it was reverted would fit better for this part. Wlaak (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::for reference, i wrote this:

::The church is not ethnically exclusive, but two main ethnic groups in the community contest their ethnic identification as Syriac-Arameans and Assyrians. The Church has, however, advocated for an Aramean heritage, stating that its adherents are Syriacs, descendants of the Arameans, and in 1952 officially rejected the Assyrian name for the community and language, stating that it contradicts the truth of history, the tradition upheld by their scholars and ancestors throughout millennia, the recognition of their community worldwide, as well as the agreement of all Western scholars.

::and to add on this, we could reference the late patriarch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas as well as a Publication of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East from our current Patriarch both confirming what was said in 1952, that they are indeed Syrian/Syriac-Arameans. (see above comment for refernce/sources) Wlaak (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::just noticed that the co-author of the article Sargon Donabed wrote is also Assyrian, both are Assyrian. they have only been referenced in the Assyrian references of this article... Wlaak (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Please read section 'Timing' under Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. You are completely discrediting Barsoum's former views on the church's identity in place of those after 1952, and only citing this one source that he wrote. You are also only citing this one section of the source, that is cherrypicking information to suit your point of view. Nowhere in Barsoum's source is the Simele massacre mentioned to provide such justification on his change in stance, and you are discrediting Sargon Donabed's source based solely on his Assyrian identity and the fact he is named "Sargon". Unless you can prove concisely that Donabed's source is unreliable, than it is important to keep it in the article. Both of Barsoum's viewpoints are included in the section of the article that discusses identity, including both major viewpoints on identity. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::What exactly is being called cherry-picked? I am basing my comments on the opinion and work of Mor Ignatius Aphrem Barsoum. His involvement in the Paris Peace Conference was before he became Patriarch. What I’m referring to is his final stance, which came later and was the official one from the Syriac Orthodox Church. It was an official statement from the Church itself.

::::Sargon Donabed referred to the Paris Peace delegation as the “Assyrian” one, ignoring its actual name: the Assyro-Chaldean delegation. He also claimed that the people were Assyrians, again disregarding what the delegation itself stated. Both the co-author and the main author of that article are Assyrians and have been featured by the Assyrian Cultural Foundation.

::::Interestingly, the peace delegation itself wrote of “Syrians,” meaning the Syriac-Arameans, the Chaldeans, and the Nestorians (Assyrians). Only one source reflects Mor Ignatius Aphrem Barsoum’s final and official viewpoint, which is the 1952 statement issued by the Church. Wlaak (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent|:::::::::::::}} I removed part of your changes. The citation doesn't support {{xt|The Assyrian identity of the church and its people can be attested from its ancient history and around the time of Sayfo}}. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::this is absurdly too much texts, you've been told to stop writing this much multiple times...

::::::::::Sargon Donabed would not really be a unbiased source, per WP:RS, as he himself is a Assyrian, writing from a Assyrian POV, see his name for an obvious clarification.

::::::::::Second source just speaks of a Assyrian/Syriac people, again, this is unrelated to the article Syriac Orthodox Church.

::::::::::Traditions mentioning Assyrians, such as the rogation of the Ninevites, which literally is mentioned in the Bible itself, is not relevant to this discussion either. The doctrine of Addai, and Addai himself is recognized in all major Church denominations, such as:

::::::::::Church of the East

::::::::::Roman Catholic Church

::::::::::Eastern Orthodox Church

::::::::::Oriental Orthodox Church

::::::::::Church of Caucasian Albania

::::::::::and I don't see how this is relevant either to a WikiProject about neutralizing POV on Assyrian people.

::::::::::Mor Maurice declaring Akitu as a public holiday was only in the northeastern Syria district, and this because of a huge influx of Assyrian students in Syriac schools, it was not recognized as a holiday/tradition within the Church itself, Syriac schools and a recognition of a tradition due to Assyrian students is once again not relevant to this article, especially with a WikiProject about neutralizing POV on Assyrian people.

::::::::::Sure, this is private people, this is not really a Church matter, there are multiple people of every Church denomination advocating another identity, for instance, the two Chaldean Patriarchs I referenced above, I don't see how private opinions is relevant to a Church matter.

::::::::::And lastly, about the flag, the Syriac Orthodox representatives in that delegation literally came out in 1952 and rejected anything Assyrian related, it was the same person from the delegation who denied anything Assyrian related, his 1952 book was the latest one and documents the history of the Church itself, and after having conducted his research, he rejected anything Assyrian affiliated and instead embraced an Aramean identity, with its synonym being Syrian, that is Christian Arameans.

::::::::::A flag created by private people of Tur Abdin is not relevant to this either, the Church does not affiliate itself with that flag, and that flag was not a representative of a exclusive Assyrian people.

::::::::::I'm sorry but I am failing to see any correlation between your statements and the justification of a WikiProject about neutralizing POV on Assyrian people in a article about the Syriac Orthodox Church.

::::::::::In my opinion, the 1952 official statement is more than enough, but if not, here is the late patriarch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, issuing a official statement saying that the Syrian/Syriac people is the Arameans themselves, and so is the language (Syriac-Aramaic), and anyone who's differed between this, have erred tremendously [https://ia802806.us.archive.org/8/items/syrianorthodoxch0000mari/syrianorthodoxch0000mari.pdf], if that is not enough, here is a Publications of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East from our current Patriarch stating the same thing. [https://web.archive.org/web/20160914134855/http://sayfosyriacgenocide.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Book-Sayfo-English.pdf] there are of course vocal statements from our current patriarch too, stating this, latest being in December of 2024, however, I don't know if a video is acceptable to WikiPedia. Wlaak (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think I see your point. You're looking for citations that deal solely with the issue of the church and it's identity, and not the cultural impacts of the identity, if I'm correct in stating.

:Mind telling me how you plan to complete the article before the scheduled peer review? I imagine you're mostly dealing with ecclesiology and the West Syriac theological concerns, as well as history and other broadly related topics. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::I would want such citations if that content (or any) was added. I am afraid I don't understand about finishing before the peer review. I don't think anything needs to change right now. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 23:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::@CF-501 Falcon @Surayeproject3 @Wlaak Ok, Excuse me for interrupting your lively discussion, I happened to chance upon this particular talk page section which I thought was settled after Wlaak's reply 6 days ago.

::From what I understood(correct me if i am wrong), This is about the inclusion of the Assyrian Wikiproject Box in the talk page of this article right?

::I agree with Wlaak's point that Syriac Orthodox Church is not fully an Assyrian Church in the modern period but it still has roots to the Assyrian period and some people within the church still uphold the Assyrian identity. My personal opinion here is to keep the Assyrian Wikiproject Box because this article is of interest to editors associated with the Wikiproject. But, I won't say that the members of the church are ethnically only Assyrian as Aramean members do constitute a part of the church as stated by [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/56704913.pdf this] source.

::I have not fully read the ANI thread(will do it), Will comment when I find sources relating to this culture part of Syriac Orthodox Christians. Cheers, Warriorglance(talk to me) 10:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Warriorglance, Basically. @Wlaak wants to remove the Assyrian Wikiproject Box from the talk page banner. I suggested to keep the box and add any relevant references to the article. @Surayeproject3 agreed and said it was fine. Wlaak doesn't want to mention Assyrian in the modern church. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::All right, So, I guess the discussion is not closed even though you both are in agreement? Warriorglance(talk to me) 14:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Warriorglance, Kind of. If you also agree, I think that is enough to keep the talk page banner and just add a NPOV explanation to the article. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@CF-501 Falcon I personally see no harm in adding a talk page banner that partially relates to the article. Adding this banner does not mean this is an "Assyrian Church" anyways. Cheers, Warriorglance(talk to me) 14:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Exactly what I was saying! I think we have local consensus. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Warriorglance @CF-501 Falcon Sounds good on the WP: Assyria assessment. CF-501, what I meant when I said finishing before the peer review was that I thought you would be working towards expanding or editing the article more before requesting it, so I wanted to help with it and find reliable sources relating to its content that could be added. If this is still the case, let me know and I can dedicate some time within the next few weeks to do so.

::::::::I've reverted @Wlaak's recent edits as they appear biased and no consensus on them was reached. If they're reliable, we can re-add or modify it and offer an opposing viewpoint to balance perspectives. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Are you joking? What exactly is biased on them? They are literally supported by sources from the Church itself, you added the part of identity (the rejecting Assyrian part by Mor Ignatius Aphrem I), with no consensus, when I expand with further information, you revert? Nothing was biased and nothing was POV, you are free to check the references yourself and see. How can it be biased if I quoted the authors, literally wrote, "Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas wrote in 1983...", they are the two Patriarchs after Mor Ignatius Aphrem I.

:::::::::I will be reverting to my addition since I referenced the authors in the text, per WP:RS, stating "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."."

:::::::::They are neither POV as I literally added zero more information outside of what the source stated. Wlaak (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I am, in fact, not joking. I added Donabed's source because CF-501 stated, "Regarding the article, I think there is enough clarity right now. @Surayeproject3 If you disagree you can add a very short bit from an academic/reliable source under what I added yesterday." I went ahead and did just that, the established consensus indicates a majority approval of this change as you're the only person who has so far raised an objection. I think you're misunderstanding what is exactly considered consensus in these discussions, note that under Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT it states "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing...Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated." This applies just as much here, your edits have been challenged by me, and so I am voicing my arguments. Out of respect for the other editors involved, and for the fact that this article is about to receive a peer review, please do not add in the content until other input is received.

::::::::::Regarding Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, I agree that it is important to mention. However, you are neglecting that Iwas has previously stated in a Patriarchal Encyclical that he did not affirm Assyrian nor Aramean, taking a neutral stance on the dispute [https://www.soc-wus.org/patriarchate/The%20Name%20of%20the%20Church.htm] (this is directly from the SOC). Semi-related is that Zakka I Iwas himself was named Sanharib after the ancient king of Assyria before his name was changed in Mosul's Mor Ephrem seminary, which shows that the patriarch from birth had connection to Assyrian culture and ancestry. As Wikipedia:Cherrypicking says, "...generally the view that came later in time is not contradicted by the view that came earlier in time for purposes of reporting in Wikipedia." These viewpoints need to be accounted for in the article, and I am confident there is room for compromise that involves both of these parts. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I am talking about the one about the addition you made with Mor Ignatius Aphrem I.

:::::::::::You are challenging the editor, not the edits, as has already been mentioned in the ANI. You seem to be following edits that mention anything Aramean-related.

:::::::::::Make sure to add that if that is the case, there is no need to remove everything. Using his name as an argument for his identity stance is absurd. He has made a statement on what the people are. You could add that while previously being neutral, he spoke out on what the Church holds for identity on the people, not revert.

:::::::::::Your argument is what? His name being considered something? Multiple people are named after multiple things, yet do not identify with that thing.

:::::::::::And as Wikipedia:Cherrypicking states, the later view does not contradict the earlier one. He simply formed a stance after previously not having one, so there is no contradiction.

:::::::::::I can give it one try and apply your feedback, I will revert and take in account his earlier viewpoint. Wlaak (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas initially maintained a neutral position regarding the ethnic identity of the Syriac Orthodox Church and did not formally endorse any specific stance during his early patriarchal tenure.

::::::::::::added. Wlaak (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Thank you, it looks much better. I made small edits to condense the information to flow more easily, as well as to note his birth name and to fix the year when he wrote his book (it was 1932, but the correct year was 1983). Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Including "whose birth name was Senharib, which was an Assyrian king" is POV and unnecessary. It is not relevant here, as readers can view his article for that kind of information.

::::::::::::::I also noticed that you removed the part about the Syriacs being the Arameans, which is explicitly stated in his book and is the central point of the "Name and Identity" subsection. The source clearly says: "The Syriac language is the Aramaic language itself, and the Arameans are the Syrians themselves. Whoever has made a distinction between them has erred."

::::::::::::::Made changes, thanks for pointing out 1932 1983. Wlaak (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::@Surayeproject3, I agree that "whose birth name was Senharib, which was an Assyrian king" is unneeded and possibly POV.

:::::::::::::::Happy to see you two agreeing! @Wlaak, I believe you are right with your second paragraph. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::@CF-501 Falcon Mind if I make comments about the content later? I want to voice an argument about the content but I'll be off-wiki for a few hours. Surayeproject3 (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::No problem. Wikipedia isn't a job. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::@CF-501 Falcon@Surayeproject3, does any of you guys have access to the book referenced for this sentence "The Syriac Orthodox identity included auxiliary cultural traditions of the Assyrian Empire and Aramean kingdoms."?

::::::::::::::::::Been trying to access it as this is completely new information to me, but can't access the page, it's locked on Google books. Wlaak (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::@Wlaak I found an earlier version of the book on Internet Archive here: [https://archive.org/details/studiesinearlych0000heng/page/380/mode/2up?q=aramean]. Searching "Assyrian" I couldn't find any mentions, and "Aramean" is only used once in a footnote. Looking through Google Books for the cited edition from 2004, there don't seem to be any mentions of either of the names [https://books.google.com.gt/books/about/Studies_in_Early_Christology.html?id=0fLPOx1B-AwC].

:::::::::::::::::::My personal opinion is that Assyrian and Aramean heritage can be inferred from the writings of several Syriac authors, as well as the issue of the naming dispute. For Wikipedia, though, I believe removing the information is OK unless a different source can back up this statement. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::I have a source for it and have added it.

:::::::::::::::::::https://www.syriacstudies.com/wp-conteant/uploads/2020/02/the-formation-of-communal-identity.pdf Miaphysis (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::it has no content in it, nor is the wayback machine catching any prior snapshots. Wlaak (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::Sorry, I accidentally made a spelling error. Check this:

:::::::::::::::::::::https://www.syriacstudies.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/the-formation-of-communal-identity.pdf Miaphysis (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Surayeproject3, No comment on the revert, you two have seemed to figured it out. Just don't edit war! It has been listed for peer review, but changes are still welcome. I would suggest waiting for drastic changes till after the review. The more help the better. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@CF-501 Falcon Hey again, sorry for the delay as I ended up busier than I thought I would be. Regarding Mor Zakka I Iwas's name, I reflected on it and agree now that it's rather unnecessary to include in the article, I personally thought it was important since I felt it partially related to the Assyrian identity of the SOC (given that he was the former patriarch). I think that having that information on his regular page should suffice though.

::::::::::One of my concerns is that Wlaak may be giving WP:UNDUE weight towards the Aramean argument as opposed to the Assyrian one with his recent edits on the section. I believe that the quantity of text in relation to the Aramean arguments, as well as the shifting of Assyrian material later in the section, are indicators of this and that both sides of the argument are not being given an equal weight. I'm not going to make any edits on the section until there is a larger agreement on these concerns, though, as I would like to avoid any more struggles on editing moving forward. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I agree to a certain extant. We don't need this big of a section to discuss this. It can certainly be refined to summarize both views. I think that both you and @Wlaak should stop editing that section. You both, while non intentionally, push the POV you support. It would be wiser to leave short requests with references on this page. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::What is WP:UNDUE here? Whether one like it or not, the Church is advocating an Aramean identity, that is what is written on the article, however, other views are included such as the neutrality two Patriarchs had before... Wlaak (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::After consensus is made regarding this, The section can be refined to avoid conflicting sentences regarding Arameans and Assyrians such as:

::::::::::{{xt|The Syriac Orthodox Church has stated that its native adherents are Syriacs with heritage rooted in the Arameans. For this reason, the term Syriac-Aramean is commonly used.}} and the second one:

::::::::::{{xt|Although the Church is not ethnically exclusive, two main ethnic groups in the community contest their ethnic identification as Syriac-Arameans and Assyrians}}

::::::::::The first sentence seems to suggest that the identity of the adherents are only Aramean while the second sentence suggests that Assyrians were also a part. I'm not saying this should be removed, but it can surely be refined to make it concise and clear to the readers. Best, Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::One is the Church's stance and the other is the composition of the Church. On second thoughts, we should probably include Keralites too, as they make up the majority of the Church. Wlaak (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, the “Name & Identity” section now, with the edits made during April, contains a lot of WP:OR. There are secondary WP:RS available to rely on here.

Aphrem I Barsoum:

• Currently, there is a quotation from his 1952 book after the second paragraph, as well as a summary of his views in the second-to-last paragraph. These should be "merged", if his views (despite the article using phrases such as "the official position of the church") are considered relevant. My suggestion would be to rely on the secondary WP:RS and avoid direct quotations.
• The second paragraph, prior to the quote, contains WP:OR and should be removed, including the first sentence (non-reliable source).

Zakka I Iwas and his “position”:

• Currently, the third paragraph suggests that "Zakka I Iwas initially maintained a neutral position..."; this is WP:OR, with a link to a non-reliable source (probably not containing anything other than the original statement, but still, please avoid such links), followed by a WP:SYNTHesis ("...he took a stance and formally declared...") based on a publication by him.
• The Synod statement (see [https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/17919 Atto (2011)], p. 337-338), which in this article is referred to as "the patriarch's initial neutral position", is what is interesting here and should be highlighted in the article (however, not framed as the position of the patriarch). To my knowledge, this stance still stands today.
• I would avoid using primary sources. The same patriarch made statements about the community being part of an "Arab nation" as well (Atto (2011), p. 380-381) - should that also be considered relevant then?

Ignatius Aphrem II:

• The fourth paragraph includes a reference to a booklet on Sayfo, attributed to Ignatius Aphrem II in the reference in this article, and "stands as the latest formal statement regarding the ethnic identity of the Church's faithful" (WP:SYNTH). In reality, the booklet was written by a priest named Luka Awad and a Mr. Mounzer Obeid. Why is the current patriarch listed as the author then?

To summarize:

• Secondary WP:RS should be used, preferebly not primary sources. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH should most definitely be avoided.
• The Synod statement should be highlighted.
• I don't think that the latest contributions, including the quotation, are a good addition to the section, based on the above. Shmayo (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Shmayo, Thank you! I agree with what you have said. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::We are stating "according to" because we are referencing Church leaders on the matter of identity—these should be considered primary sources. I may also include secondary sources that support these statements.

::The fourth paragraph is a publication from the Church itself. We could mention that it is from a recent official publication by the Patriarchate, and remove the author's name, since the statement was issued by the Patriarchate.

::Including one quote would be useful, especially the one from Mor Ingatius Aphrem I Barsoum, as it is a key statement that helped define the Church's identity.

::In a section about Identity and Name, the current content, along with the inclusion of other perspectives (such as neutrality), provides the most balanced and appropriate coverage.

::I will include secondary sources to support this, and will ensure WP:SYNTH is avoided. Wlaak (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This does not address the concerns raised above. Add any new suggestion here and ensure to avoid WP:OR by relying on secondary WP:RS. Also, something being republished does not mean it is a secondary source. Shmayo (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Wlaak @Shmayo Don't start an edit war... Discuss in talk page about the changes. Warriorglance(talk to me) 15:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, give me some time and I will address the issues and implement changes on the section, without deleting the entire section as happened from Shmayo.

:::::But just a quick note, we are referencing the authors own statements, according to WP:ACCORDINGTO, the article is following. We are not referencing what some consider scholarly studies but the statements from the Church itself, it will naturally be primary sources, and thus WP:ACCORDINGTO is implemented. Scholarly studies quoting statements from the Church regarding the ethnic identity of the adherents would be very scarce... Wlaak (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Wlaak This is getting long, so can you please explain (in short points, dont do long stuff) what do you wish to implement in the article. We can start from those points. I feel like I'm missing something since I joined the discussion late. Are you saying that the church is ethnically composed of only Arameans and not Assyrians? Or are you conveying that Church recognises itself as Aramean? Warriorglance(talk to me) 08:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::So currently, the current article is good, it covers the neutrality advocated by the Church and it is covering the identity of the Church. the Syriac Orthodox Church is composed of numerous identities, not only Arameans but, Assyrians, Swedish, Germans, Arabs, Eritreans etc.

:::::::What I am saying, and what is evident in the identity section, is that the Church says the identity of its native adherents are Syriac-Arameans. I talked a bit to a edit-helper, in which this case would be fine to have primary sources for such a situation, since this is a statement from the Church, however, I have already included secondary sources for the first patriarch's statement and will do the same for all the others.

:::::::It's currently Easter so I will not be available to do it today, Happy Easter to you all! Wlaak (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent|:::::::}}So, no changes other than a removal of the phrase "took a stance" and the addition of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286283248&oldid=1286258693 these] two sources. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1285882769&oldid=1285851928 My suggestion here] still stands (ping @Wlaak, @Warriorglance, @Surayeproject3 - and ping @CF-501 Falcon, despite your previous comment on my suggestion):

• Use secondary WP:RELIABLESOURCES. [https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/17919 Atto (2011)] and [https://open.bu.edu/items/9af1e5da-fa4d-4808-9afe-d294580fe52c Donabed & Mako (2009)] are good examples
• Merge parts about Aphrem I Barsoum. Remove direct quotes.
• Remove section about Zakka I Iwas, which is WP:OR. Instead, add part on Synod statement, based on e.g. Atto (2011).
• Remove section about Ignatius Aphrem II, or the so-called "latest formal statement regarding the ethnic identity". WP:OR. A couple of sentences from a booklet about Sayfo written by one Syriac Orthodox priest is of course not a "formal statement on identity" and is irrelevant here. Shmayo (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Still agree with the above. _{Thank you for the ping!} The most neutral thing would be one very short summary of both sides. It has to be sourced from reliable secondary sources. We don't need what one patriarch said or didn't say or him later changing stance. The perfect solution would be a statement from the church (preferably the constitution) saying which is right. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Haven't had the chance to review everything, but one thing I noticed is that the text writes about "Arameans" and "Assyrians" as being two separate ethnicities, but these are actually just two names to represent the same people. I think this text should be changed to fit alongside that. Surayeproject3 (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::I put two secondary sources, direct quotes can be removed, no issues with that. we can remove the "latest formal statement regarding the ethnic identity", however, include the section.

::@Surayeproject3 well the identity section of the Church does firmly state that the adherents are Arameans, not Assyrians, which have secondary sources as well as primary sources referenced. Wlaak (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::naturally, matters about Church identity is not common in secondary sources, specially on books/booklets published by the from the Patriarchate, for this matter primary sources would be OK. Wlaak (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::since we are already doing WP:ACCORDINGTO Wlaak (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Shmayo Agree with what you said, The section would be better without the quote. Warriorglance(talk to me) 04:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::done. according to feedback, included the Holy Synod part, in which Patriarch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas presided over, and so for every Patriarch, presiding over the Holy Synod.

::"His title is 'His holiness Moran Mor Ignatius, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East and tho Supreme Head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church'. His religious prerogatives include the installation of the catholicos, the consecration of the legally elected bishops and the consecration of chrism, provided that at least two bishops are present with him for the ceremony. He also has the authority to convene universal synods and other synods of which he is the chairman."

::"The patriarch is responsible to the holy synod consisting of all the bishops of the Apostolic See of Antioch, which is considered to be the supreme authority in the church."

::- The Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch at a Glance, 1983. Wlaak (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Alright. That's okay, now the next paragraph which starts with "Although the church is not ethnically exclusive..." needs some formatting. I kinda feel something's wrong or it's not in the correct place in that section. Warriorglance(talk to me) 15:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I fixed the archive for you, There is now a index. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 15:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay, personally, I don't see how it even fits in that Name and Identity section, since it speaks of adherents being Syriac-Arameans and Assyrians, the Church is composed of numerous of ethnic identities such as the south Americans making up a huge portion of it, we have Swedish, Germany, Dutch etc. converts. Personally, I don't think its logical we put a text about the adherents ethnic identity of the Church Wlaak (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Peer review/Syriac Orthodox Church/archive4}}

Please review this sentence: "It is estimated that the church has 600,000 Syriac adherents, in addition to 2 million members of the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church and their own ethnic diaspora in India.", this would make the total adherents being around 2.6 million? The infobox states 1 million less... could not find the sources stating that high number either. What do you think? Am I missing something or? @CF-501 Falcon Wlaak (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:You would be better of asking @Warriorglance, He did the numbers. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Wlaak Thank you for catching this inconsistency! I had not paid attention to the numbers as I saw they had sources. A quick web search told me that the data is wrong and the number is almost 4,83,000. Source:- [https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2024/Mar/28/kerala-ls-polls-cross-knots New Indian Express] [https://www.deccanherald.com/india/tracing-origins-st-thomas-684219.html#:~:text=Of%20the%206.141%20million%20Christians,community%20has%204.83%20lakh%20members. Deccan Herald]. In this case, We have to check every number to prove its authenticity. Warriorglance(talk to me) 08:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I guess so. Tell me if you need help. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 10:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{xt|There is also a large Syriac community among Mayan converts in Guatemala and South America numbering up to 1.5 million}}. There is no sources to support this and I am positive that it is incorrect. Any help in finding the correct number would be good! Cheers, Warriorglance(talk to me) 11:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Warriorglance, [https://web.archive.org/web/20151009152019/http://www.icergua.org/latam/estadisticas.html] from the Internet Archive. {{xt|SOME ICERGUA STATISTICS AS OF JUNE 2009 The Communion currently has: 16 Priests members of the Nazareth Community (community life - celibate), 14 secular priests (including those from Peru, Mexico, and Guatemala) 42 seminarians and more than 350,000 members.}} CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 12:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::"In March 2013 a Syriac Orthodox archdiocese was established in Central America, with the bulk of its over 500,000 members located in Guatemala. When I mention this to persons born into the Church or to scholars working in Syriac Studies, they often assume that a Syriac Orthodox diaspora has established itself there as a result of migration from the Middle East. When I reply that these are actually “new” Syriac Orthodox and overwhelmingly Maya and former Roman Catholics, my interlocutors then ask: What liturgy do they use? and, what role does the Syriac language have?"

::::::- When Ephrem Meets the Maya. Defining and Adapting the Syriac Orthodox Tradition in Guatemala

::::::(Anna Hager University of Vienna/FWF)

::::::[https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv23n2hager][https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352510556_When_Ephrem_Meets_the_Maya_Defining_and_Adapting_the_Syriac_Orthodox_Tradition_in_Guatemala]

::::::Wlaak (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That fits with the timeline. 350,000 in 2009 / 500,000 in 2013. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 15:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks a lot! Warriorglance(talk to me) 16:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::_{A totally unrelated thing, Don't you think the talk page is getting ridiculously large and is need of archiving?} Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::_{I have been looking into the documentation. I'll try to figure it out. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)}

:::::::::I also thought about this and agree, it should be cleared and archived. Wlaak (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}That 500,000 number is not appropriately referenced. There's no citation for it in the journal article that's mentioned above. Demographic statistics need clear and reliable sourcing—especially a claim as substantial as that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Pbritti I think [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41603-019-00083-1 this] mentions the sources of the journal. Warriorglance(talk to me) 07:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Discussiontop|reason=This thread has balloned out of the original message. Please use a new thread. Keep it short and use Template:Outdent if needed. Note: Machine translations are not accurate, try to find someone who speaks the language. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 12:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

@Warriorglance & @CF-501 Falcon: Thank you for your comment on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286591683&oldid=1286520292 my suggestion]. CF-501 Falcon, I agree with you on the patriarchs. I have adjusted accordingly, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286743556&oldid=1286712521 this] version. @Wlaak: Going forward, I suggest that you add your suggestions here first. Shmayo (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Shamyo, no offense and nothing personal, but it seems as you have a problem with the identity not the content, judging by your previous ANI's, and contributions. See my previous comment, the Patriarchate is a huge reason to include in the identity section, especially if all 3 consecutive Patriarchates have stated the same thing, the following is said about the Holy Synod in correlation to the Patriarchate in the "Syrian Orthodox Church at a glance":

:His title is 'His holiness Moran Mor Ignatius, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East and tho Supreme Head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church'. His religious prerogatives include the installation of the catholicos, the consecration of the legally elected bishops and the consecration of chrism, provided that at least two bishops are present with him for the ceremony. He also has the authority to convene universal synods and other synods of which he is the chairman."

:"The patriarch is responsible to the holy synod consisting of all the bishops of the Apostolic See of Antioch, which is considered to be the supreme authority in the church."

:The Patriarch stating that 'amo Suryoyo is the Syrian people specified that the 'amo Suryoyo (Syrian) are the Arameans themselves...

:The Holy Synod is chaired by the Patriarchate:

:"The Holy Synod, headed by H. H. the Patriarch, is the supreme religious, spiritual, legislative and administrative authority of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch." [https://www.malankara.com/constitution_of_Syriac_orthodox_church.html#:~:text=The%20Holy%20Synod%2C%20headed%20by,Syrian%20Orthodox%20Church%20of%20Antioch.]

:Even in this article we have stated about the Patriarch that "He is the general administrator to Holy Synod and supervises the spiritual, administrative, and financial matters of the church."...

:A official Patriarchate statement covering the identity part is more than sufficient enough to be included in this articles identity section. Wlaak (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::The Holy Synod states that from the time of St. Peter, the Church has been called the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch. The language is called Syriac, and the people are referred to as the Syrian people.

::It is already an established fact that the name of the Church and its people has been "Syrians." Further clarifications regarding what "Syrians" means, according to the position of the Patriarchate, do not reject the earlier statements. Thus, it is stated: "The Syriac Orthodox Church Patriarchate has affirmed that its native adherents are Syriacs with heritage rooted in the Arameans", as well as, "it was declared that the Syriac language is the Aramaic language itself", and that "the Arameans are the Syriacs", and "the victims of the Sayfo were described as Syriacs, descendants of the ancient Arameans."

::Nowhere is it denied that the adherents are Syrians; it has only been specified, in accordance with the Patriarchate's position, what "Syrians" are and what their heritage and origin is.

::To remind you again, the Patriarchate presides the Holy Synod:

::"The patriarch is responsible to the holy synod consisting of all the bishops of the Apostolic See of Antioch, which is considered to be the supreme authority in the church."

::"The Holy Synod, headed by H. H. the Patriarch, is the supreme religious, spiritual, legislative and administrative authority of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch." Wlaak (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That is your opinion. I am not quite sure what you are trying to say with the quotes above. I have tried to reach WP:CONSENSUS here, but you have reverted my edit (based on my suggestion(s) linked above) twice, even though more than one third-party user agreed to my suggestion. Unfortunately, WP:DRN or a WP:RfC is what I am proposing next. Shmayo (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::i have tried improving the article based on your suggestions, but no matter what, you do not want to include the Aramean name it seems.

::::we listened to your feedback, we removed the quote, removed the "formally declared" etc.

::::is three consecutive Patriarchates, presiding the Holy Synod not relevant enough/sufficient discussion the identity of the Church enough to be included? Warriorglance stated the changes were fine, and that we should move on to the next paragraph, I am not sure what you mean with more than one third agrees with you.

::::you suggested:

::::* Merge parts about Aphrem I Barsoum. Remove direct quotes.

::::* Remove section about Zakka I Iwas, which is WP:OR. Instead, add part on Synod statement, based on e.g. Atto (2011).

::::* Remove section about Ignatius Aphrem II, or the so-called "latest formal statement regarding the ethnic identity". WP:OR. A couple of sentences from a booklet about Sayfo written by one Syriac Orthodox priest is of course not a "formal statement on identity" and is irrelevant here.

::::first point was done. second point about the Holy Synod was added under Patriarch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, other statement from him, 2 years later, was also included. your last point was also fixed, "latest formal statement regarding the ethnic identity" was removed, author was changed to "Publication from the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch and all the East". it now seems as you want to have everything deleted.

::::Wlaak (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Shmayo I've unarchived the ANI that discusses the recent issues surrounding the naming dispute on pages and have made mention of the page for the Syriac Orthodox Church. I don't think a DRN or RfC would be very effective considering the disputed content ties back to the naming dispute, but in any case, I've made a recent reply there.

::::@Wlaak There needs to be a balanced discussion of both identities in this section, right now your edits are WP:UNDUE towards the Aramean argument. Multiple editors, myself included, are or seem to be in agreement of this; if you are going to add more information about the Aramean argument for identity, add more information about the Assyrian ones too. Make a short summary of both arguments using reliable, secondary sources. Otherwise, a lot of this information is just WP:OR. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have replied to the ANI.

:::::Balance of what? We have included the Assyrian name of the Church in America, we have included the ethnic composition of the Church being of both identities, we have included Mor Ingatius Aphrem I's neutrality stance as well as the Holy Synod's stance, literally every feedback was implemented.

:::::Three consecutive Patriarchal offices have argued for an Aramean identity, how can it possible be WP:UNDUE, if neither of these three consecutive Patriarchal offices have argued for an Assyrian identity, only rejected?

:::::What can be added about the Assyrian one?

:::::Secondary sources on the first Patriarchal paragraph have already been implemented, and others will to.

:::::I'll ask again, what could be written of about a Assyrian argument in this matter? Wlaak (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Well if we can add anything about the Assyrian argument, how about we add that Ignatius Aphrem II is neutral about the naming dispute and has insisted on the naming designation being "Suryoye" instead of Assyrian or Aramean?

::::::Otherwise, I am in line with Shmayo's version and am confident that it provides a short section that includes details pertaining to both sides without distracting from the content of the article. Following the recent discussions, I believe that this is the version it should stay at, whilst any future changes should be discussed and have consensus approved on in this talk page discussion. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We have that in the section already:

:::::::"Ignatius Aphrem I had previously been openly supportive of the Assyrian and Chaldean identities, representing the Assyro-Chaldean delegation of the Paris Peace Conference, but following the Simele massacre, he began to adopt an anti-Assyrian stance that influenced the rest of the church's adherents."

:::::::We also have:

:::::::"In recent works, Assyrian-American historian Sargon Donabed has pointed out that parishes in the US were originally using Assyrian designations in their official English names, also noting that in some cases those designations were later changed to Syrian and then to Syriac, while three parishes still continue to use Assyrian designations."

:::::::As well as:

:::::::"In 1981, the Holy Synod under Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas stated that the adherents of the Syriac Orthodox Church are 'amo Suryoyo (Syriacs)."

:::::::Have you read the article?

:::::::So, what else can be added? Since you are speaking of WP:UNDUE. Shamyo's version deletes all three Patriarchal statements regarding the identity, including the one you added, it does not speak anything of the identity of the Church except for one small quote that is Wikipedia:Cherrypicking, since it does not include the second statement from Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas. Wlaak (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Please find the statement of Mor Ignatius Aphrem II's stance on neutrality, I am not in opposition of adding anything, improve the section instead of deleting everything we've built so far. Wlaak (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Surayeproject3: Partly agree that it ties back to the naming dispute, however, I find Wlaak's edits here disruptive (still an issue for ANI). While the other editors agreed that we should rely on secondary WP:RS here and exclude "what one patriarch said or didn't say" (to quote CF-501 Falcon), Wlaak still reverted my edits claiming "no consensus" and that I "want to have everything deleted". My intension was, just like you summarized at ANI and like I wrote above, for us to suggest changes, based on secondary WP:RS, here first. This talk section is now an unreadable mess, like every other. At the moment, I am not very interested in discussing how to phrase a paragraph on an individual patriarch's view on identity based on primary sources; I have pointed out why that is complex and should be avoided with examples and policies, but Wlaak interprets those examples as "something to correct". Thus, I see no reason to continue here. Shmayo (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I have clarified what the Patriarchate has in correlation to the Holy Synod, he presides it, and three consecutive Patriarchates, one the same as the one you wanted to include about Holy Synod statement is included.

::::::None of them agreed on deleting everything, as you did. A Patriarchates statement is just as relevant, especially when it is three consecutive ones. Patriarchates preside the Holy Synod, as stated in this very own article.

::::::We are using WP:ACCORDINGTO, we have already put secondary sources on the first paragraph, Surayeproject3 and you are both part of Assyrian WikiPedian's, it seems as it is just a way for you to delete any Aramean mention, despite this matter being more than relevant in the section. Wlaak (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Shmayo @Wlaak @CF-501 Falcon I am proposing for a WP:RFC, It seems we are unable to establish consensus regarding this, any inputs from a third party editor would be really appreciated. Warriorglance(talk to me) 15:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It seems that this is not the only thing we have to fix, we have reply from the peer review. Warriorglance(talk to me) 15:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::hi. i want to help, however, instead of requesting for AfC, both Assyrian WikiPedians (per their user pages) have filed ANI's against me for restoring the section delete done by Shmayo, although I may not be as open to change things now since they might use my edits as reasons in ANI, I will see what I can improve. Wlaak (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Oh.. I haven't seen the latest ANI thread. I guess we can temporarily pause this and work on issues mentioned in the peer review. Warriorglance(talk to me) 07:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::There is another one ... What?! I think the aforementioned editors should all step back, at least from that section, till the ANI finishes. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::yes, after the first one closed, they opened another one. i will not touch the section.

:::::::::::ill focus on the peer review Wlaak (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I don't know if that is a good idea, as it may further complicate the complaint. While your help would be very appreciated let the ANI die down first. Same for the other two. If you do choose to help, Thank you. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I have nothing to do with the ANI that was just opened. I agree that the content of that section shouldn't be touched until it settles down though. In any case, I took a look at the peer review and made the following changes:

:::::::::::::- Fixed the Harv error for citation 47, Donabed and Mako's source

:::::::::::::- Fixed the other Harv errors. Akgündüz [https://books.google.com/books?id=X_LmnA75Dt8C&pg=PA217], Armbruster [https://books.google.com/books?id=dEAViR9YNUoC], Atto [https://books.google.com/books?id=mBU3DAAAQBAJ], Aydin [https://web.archive.org/web/20030419090533/http://www.saintgabrielsyouth.com/syriac_church.htm], Bardakci [https://books.google.com/books?id=olQLDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA165] and Barsoum [https://books.google.com/books?id=1TMsAQAAMAAJ] are not cited anywhere in the article, so I've removed them from the Bibliography altogether. If you find any valuable information from these sources, feel free to reinsert them.

:::::::::::::- Removed references from the lead

:::::::::::::- Changed image under "Genocide" to a picture of a monument in Switzerland

:::::::::::::- Under communities, changed "Syriac Cultural hearltand" to link Assyrian homeland in Tur Abdin and "Syriac" to Assyrian/Syriac for Sodertalje

:::::::::::::I did not find the unreferenced paragraphs. Hope these changes help. Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::thank you! i went ahead and corrected some misspellings and put emphasis on the Syriac Orthodox community itself, not adherents. Wlaak (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::I have added content from one Patriarch, Mor Ignatius Yacoub III although from his time as Metropolitan post Mor Aphrem I Barsoum indicating both Assyrian and Aramean identities (in that exact order) while keeping the rest. He is already cited in one of the sources as supporting the claim that the Arameans founded the Church with other gentile converts. I have also added content supporting the claim that the Syriac Orthodox identity included auxiliary traditions from the Assyrian empire and Aramean kingdoms.

::I completely agree with the suggestions provided by @Shmayo and @CF-501 Falcon and hold that they should be implemented but I would just add two things, namely related to eliminating any bias that seeks to give any impression towards one view:

::Firstly, the section about the identity of its adherents must be moved back up as it was before, while the claim that the Aramean identity is or was the "official position" based on Mor Aphrem Barsoum's statement, regardless of its official nature should be removed as well as the part about "Syriac-Arameans" founding the Church per tradition (citing two modern sources from the time of Mor Aphrem Zakka I's Patriarchate by both the Patriarch and, D. Babu Paul and the aforementioned Mor Ignatius Yacoub who has also affirmed the Assyrian identity alongside the Aramean identity), followed by Patriarchal argumentation for an Aramean identity should be removed.

::That @Wlaak seeks to give the impression that at an official level, even at the Holy Synod, stating that by "Suryoyo" Aramean was meant is not something he keeps secret even on this very talk page.

::Secondly, mentioning Mor Aphrem I Barsoum's "Assyrian and Chaldean" identities later on also gives the impression that the Assyrian identity was just one, alongside the Chaldean identity that he promoted, when the "Assyro-Chaldeen" label was exclusively used in French. This is another deliberate attempt to undermine one position in support of the other.

::In conclusion, a solution must be implemented that retains every existing sources on both sides and summarizes both positions including affirmations of both identities. The edits @Wlaak has made gives a deliberate impression that one side is true and that the other identity, while expressed by some its adherents has no basis, a position he explicitly affirmed on this talk page.

::Pinging @Wlaak@Surayeproject3@Warriorglance Miaphysis (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Miaphysis I recommend you don't do edits to the 'Name and Identity' section until the ANI issue is settled down.I have no authority over that. Also, You did not provide any explanation for the drastic changes made in the lead. Please provide an explanation for the changes including the usage of the term "Syriac Eastern" and "Byzantine rite" Warriorglance(talk to me) 05:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have removed it for now, Please do not add it back until an agreement is reached with other editors. Warriorglance(talk to me) 05:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The page should otherwise remain the same as it is, the only edits I have made pertain to the name & identity page which I have explained in detail. Miaphysis (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm not responsible for the "Syriac Eastern" and "Byzantine rite" edits, a random IP is. Miaphysis (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Ok, Thank you for the clarification! We might need your help in reorganising the section after everything. Warriorglance(talk to me) 08:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::No problem. I have made my stance clear with extra sources and I think the other editors are already in agreement. Miaphysis (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If you have reliable sources, you don't need agreement from other editors. I was referring to the alteration in the lead section when I said that, which you did not do anyway. I had no choice but to revert your 'Name' section edit when I reverted the lead section edit. Warriorglance(talk to me) 09:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I'll reorganize per the suggestions of @Shmayo as was written earlier. Miaphysis (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::His suggestions are in a ANI, just saying. Wlaak (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Also, I suggest that the "contention" part of the identity may be added in a separate sentence, as neutrality or affirmation of both identities within the Church both at the upper level and among its adherents is very common as per the various sources provided. However I would discuss this here first before making the change. Miaphysis (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Did you translate the source for this statement: "Patriarch Mor Ignatius Ya'qub III, then Metropolitan of Lebanon and Damascus wrote: "ethnically: we are the Assyrians and Arameans who during the early ages were the forerunners of the civilized nations who gave humanity education and knowledge".

::::::::::Looking at the source, it is in Syriac Aramaic and states that the Arameans and Assyrians were the ones that first taught humanity knowledge and skills, it does not speak of "ethnically" or "we". Wlaak (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Here is the original text of Mor Ignatius Yacoub III in Syriac Aramaic:

:::::::::::ܥܕܬܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܬܐ:

::::::::::: ܐܘܡܬܝܐܬ ܡ̇ܢ: ܟܝܢܬ ܐܡܘ̈ܬܐ ܡܕܝܢ̈ܬܐ ܕܟܕܪ̈ܐ ܩܪ̈ܡܐ ܟܪܝܫܐ ܣܝܡܐ. ܣܟܝ̈ܗ̇ ܓܝܪ ܐܬܘܪ̈ܝܐ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܘܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ: ܩܕܡ̈ܝܐ ܘܗ̣ܗ ܕܠܐܝܫܘܬܐ ܝܘ̈ܠܦܢܐ ܘܐܘܡܢܘ̈ܬܐ ܠܠܦܘ

:::::::::::He is speaking of the Syriac Church and its national composition, thus the translation is accurate although not 1:1 from Syriac to English. Miaphysis (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::the words "ethnically" and "we" is not present. Translation should be: "For its elders, I mean the Assyrians and Arameans, were the first to teach humanity knowledge and skills, and to transform the simplicity of the world through habitation and civilization." Wlaak (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::"ܐܘܡܬܝܐܬ" means "ethnically" and it is present. The word "we" is indeed not present however he is speaking of the Syriac Orthodox Church. The wording should only be slightly altered in this case. Miaphysis (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::it does not mean ethnically, it is from the root word ܐܘܡܬܐ, therefore ܐܘܡܬܝܐܬ means nationally, not ethnically. Wlaak (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Nation and ethnicity are related terms and both accurate translations of ܐܘܡܬܐ. As the Wiktionary citation of ܐܘܡܬܐ states:

:::::::::::::::ܐܘܼܡܬ݂ܵܐ • (ʾumməṯā) c (plural ܐܸܡܘܵܬܵܐ (ʾemməwāṯā) or ܐܘܼܡܘܵܬܵܐ (ʾumməwāṯā))

:::::::::::::::nation, people, race

:::::::::::::::class, genus

:::::::::::::::Thus, the meaning is fully retained. Miaphysis (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Can you give me the link to the Wikitionary entry for ܐܘܡܬܢܐܝܬ, ܐܘܡܬܢܐܝܬ is from the root ܐܘܡܬܐ, it is literally "nationally". It is the direct translation of the word.

::::::::::::::::People is ܥܡܐ, race/lineage is ܓܢܣܐ... this is a mistranslation. ethnically is not the same as nationally. Wlaak (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::This is the link for Umtha, it is translated as that. In any case, changing ethnically to nationally does not make an impact on the meaning and I am happy to oblige with changing the translation.

:::::::::::::::::https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%DC%90%DC%98%DC%A1%DC%AC%DC%90 Miaphysis (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Great, so it too gives a direct translation of the root word to "nation". this is the term for ܐܘܡܬܐ. neither does he write "we are the".

::::::::::::::::::he writes this: "For its elders, I mean the Assyrians and Arameans, were the first to teach humanity knowledge and skills, and to transform the simplicity of the world through habitation and civilization." Wlaak (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Using oromoyo.ai (thus not my personal translation), it reads:

:::::::::::::::::::The Syriac Church: National indeed: the nature of nations, cities of generations, tribes, gathered and established. >>For its inhabitants, I say, are Assyrians and Arameans: the first ones who taught humanity sciences and arts.<<

:::::::::::::::::::The meaning remains the same. The translation you give omits crucial parts. Miaphysis (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::Oromoyo.ai says the following:

::::::::::::::::::::"The Syriac Church is nationally among the first of the civilized nations of the early centuries. Its elders, the Assyrians I say and the Arameans, were the first to teach humanity knowledge and art and to change the world's barbarism into civilization and urbanity."

::::::::::::::::::::Basically as my first translation. Still, no mention of "we are the" or "ethnically".

::::::::::::::::::::Thus, your translation is a great mistranslation.

::::::::::::::::::::I am not sure if you mistyped anything in the translation, but for any other party, please feel free to paste this: ܥܕܬܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܬܐ

::::::::::::::::::::ܐܘܡܬܢܐܝܬ ܡܢ܆ ܒܝܢܬ ܐܡܘܬܐ ܡܕܝܢܝܬܐ ܕܒܕܪ̈ܐ ܩܕܡܐ ܒܪܝܫ ܣܝܡܐ. ܣܒܝܗ ܒܝܪ ܐܬܘܪ̈ܝܐ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܘܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ܆ ܩܕܡܝܐ ܗܘܘ ܕܠܐܢܫܘܬܐ ܝܘܠܦܢܐ ܘܐܘܡܢܘܬܐ ܠܠܦܘ ܘܠܗܕܝܘܝܘܬܐ ܕܥܠܡܐ ܒܥܡܘܪܝܐ ܘܒܡܕܝܢܝܘܬܐ ܚܠܦܘ.

::::::::::::::::::::in oromoyo.ai. Wlaak (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::My mistake I did mistype. Either way the distinction between ethnically or nationally does not change the meaning and I am fine with adding a different translation. Miaphysis (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::it does give a different meaning and it does not even state "we are the"... a quote is not needed in my opinion, we previously melted in the quote in a text for Mor Ignatius Aphrem I, removing the quote. Wlaak (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Robert McClenon, in cases such as this, where they are implementing the edits Shmayo wanted to have, which are in the ANI, should they still go through and be able to be implemented here? Wlaak (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Wlaak, As you have been reminded earlier, ANI only deals with user conduct issues. Your behaviour is being called into question. Additionally, the filer's (@Shmayo) behaviour will also be looked at.

::::::::::Any conflict regarding the content of the article, should go through any of the process listed at Dispute Resolution. DR seems unavoidable now, once the conduct issues are finished you, @Miaphysis, @Shmayo, and @Surayeproject3 can go through DR. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Understand, however, the current state of the section is a complete mess now. Attempts to translate Aramaic into English brought mistranslations of "ethnically" and "we are the".

:::::::::::Paragraphs were changed in order etc. Should all this not be discussed prior? They are huge changes after all. Wlaak (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::@Wlaak, Should they be discussed and fixed? Absolutely. We do not need ~600 words describing what every single person said and didn't say. @Miaphysis, while you do not have to, I would suggest waiting till we can discuss all the changes with the other 3 editors. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::First off, the translation you did on Mor Ignatius Yacoub III seems to not be accurate, he does not speak of "ethnically" or "we", it is stated that the Arameans and Assyrians were the ones that first taught humanity knowledge and skills.

:::Why should the Arameans founding the Church per tradition be removed?

:::Mor Aphrem I Barsoum's was supportive of both the Assyrian and Chaldean identities, hence the name Assyro-Chaldean, it was not exclusively Assyrian, why did you remove the mention of Chaldean? Wlaak (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have cited the Syriac Aramaic of Mor Ignatius Yacoub III on the other reply. As for the "Assyro-Chaldean" identity, he explicitly affirmed the Syrian people in the Syriac Orthodox Church descend only from the Assyrian race only while not mentioning Chaldean.

::::"The Metropolitan Severius Aphrem Barsoum, the eventual leader of the Syriac Orthodox Church, also acknowledged that "[t]he syrian people who belong to the syro-orthodox Church... are descendants of the Assyrian race." In other letters, Aphrem referred to "our nation (the assyro Chaldeans (sic]) .. residing in upper Mesopotamia chiefly" and called "for unity among the Assyrian factions, organizational and out among the people."

::::The Assyrian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference by Dr. Racho Donef, pg 227

::::The designation "Assyro-Chaldee" to name the delegation was brought at the insistence of the Chaldean Catholic Church to French General Gouraud so as to represent the Chaldean Catholics. The Syriac Orthodox had no role in choosing this title. Miaphysis (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::We are speaking of him in correlation to the Assyro-Chaldean delegation in which both identities were in favor for, hence the name. Wlaak (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::My reasoning for removing "Arameans founding the Church" is because this seeks to a specific impression of ethnicity of the founders as opposed to what others in the Church have claimed and continue to claim. Aramean can be used as a linguistic identity including for Aramaic-speaking Jews such as Mor Toma and Mor Aday. As cited from Mor Ignatius Zaka Iwas in the article itself:

::::"According to him, the name “Syriac” emerged as a linguistic term for speakers of Aramaic, and with the spread of Christianity, the name Syriac became more common, as the early Christian disciples were Syriacs linguistically.".

::::That Syriac became identical with Aramaic linguistically is something nobody disputes, not the neutral or pro-Assyrian identifiers within the Church. Thus, trying to claim the "Arameans founded the Church per tradition" undermines the under position without going into detail, causing confusion. If it is to be kept, it should be said the Church was founded by Aramaic speakers.

::::Mor Aphrem Barsoum despite being a part of the Assyro-Chaldean delegation explicitly only affirmed the Assyrian identity, the naming of the delegation in the French language is something he and the Syriac Orthodox had zero role in. Unless you can show explicit approval from the Syriac Orthodox side of the Chaldean name, it cannot be claimed he or any Syriac Orthodox was in favor of the identity. Miaphysis (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am not sure I understand what you mean, the sources, which are from the tradition clearly speaks of the Church being rooted in the efforts of the Arameans. Aramean can be used as a linguistic sense, however, reading the context, Mor Ignatius Zaka Iwas himself writes about the Arameans ethnically, he first writes about the Syriac language being Aramaic and the Syrians being Arameans, differentiating between linguistics and ethnos. Wlaak (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::He writes that "the Arameans are the Syriacs", and that Syriac is a linguistic term for speakers of Aramaic. In the [https://archive.org/details/syrianorthodoxch0000mari/page/12/mode/2up original Arabic] he states "الآراميون هم السريان" and he even wrote "ان الرسل الدعاة المسيحية الاولين كانوا سريانا لغةً".

::::::رسل in Arabic Christian usage refers to the Apostles. Thus, were the Aramaic speaking ethnically Jewish Apostles now ethnic Arameans? The only solution to this question is that this is not an ethnic Arameanism (Oromoyotho) but rather linguistic, distinguishing Jewish Aramaic speakers and pagans. Miaphysis (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Mate, read his book "The Syrian Orthodox Church at a Glance", in it, it is stated "The Syriac language is the Aramaic language itself, and the Arameans are the Syrians themselves. Whoever has made a distinction between them has erred."

:::::::He writes the Arameans are the SyrianS, not Syriacs. He differentiated between linguistics and ethnos. He goes on to write this: "every Aramean who accepted their teachings and became a Christian, changed his original Aramaic name with a Syrian name." Is this still "linguistics"? Wlaak (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I just cited the book in the original Arabic. He states that the Apostles were سرياناَ لغةً - "Suryan linguistically", the English translation doesn't capture this sufficiently by saying they simply spoke Syriac. Syriac is what سرياني in Arabic is translated as. The Apostles were Aramaic speakers despite being Jewish, and thus were called Suryan in that sense.

::::::::The point he makes is that the Syriac Orthodox Church traces itself to the original Aramaic speaking believers of Christ, including both ethnic Jews and pagans (the Arameans in question). It's disingenuous to say the "Arameans founded the Church", and also disingenuous to tie this to the Holy Synod statement made with apostolic authority years earlier, in which he was careful not to profess a certain ethnic identity. Miaphysis (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Oh give it up, it is literally translated by a fluent in Arabic and it passed for publication. Give me the original book in Arabic then, as for now, any party can access the publication [https://archive.org/details/syrianorthodoxch0000mari/mode/2up] and see for themselves. Wlaak (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I already linked the book in Arabic with a hyperlink but here's the full link for any party to view in that exact page:

::::::::::https://archive.org/details/syrianorthodoxch0000mari/page/12/mode/2up Miaphysis (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::there is no Arabic text in it... you're linking the 1983 original publication which is in English, which i actually never have seen in Arabic. Wlaak (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Here is the Arabic. It confirms everything I said.

::::::::::::https://archive.org/details/syrianorthodoxch0000mari_c7b6/page/n9/mode/2up Miaphysis (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Arabic has no distinction between Syriac and Syrian in terms of people, السريان is for Syrians, السريانية is for Syriac.

:::::::::::::I am not sure you noticed, but even in the Arabic version it is stated:

:::::::::::::When the early ages knew the apostles speaking Syriac, every Aramean who accepted their teachings and converted to Christianity would replace his old, authentic Aramaic name with the Syriac name, and would boast of being Syriac.

:::::::::::::Everything previously said and stated is correct, there is no issues in the 1983 English publication. Wlaak (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::There are no issues indeed, but it doesn't capture the meaning which is that the Arameans in question are linguistic, which "سرياناً لغةً" (Siryan linguistically) clearly delineates for the Apostles (رسل - disciples as in the disciples other than the Apostles are referred to as تلاميذ). To say the Church was founded by ethnic Arameans only would deny the role of Jewish Aramaic speakers in evangelizing to the pagan Aramaic speakers, and that is the context in which he is referring to and is why the Peshitta refers to gentiles as Aramean (exclusive from Jews yet inclusive for all non-Jews), as the Greek refers to them as Hellenes. Miaphysis (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Mate, I am not going to sit here and argue about the "mistranslation" of a official publication from the Church, when not even Google translates "mistranslates" it.

:::::::::::::::Both the Arabic and the English say that the "Arameans are the Syrians, whoever has differentiated between them has erred". Wlaak (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I never claimed once that it's a mistranslation nor have denied that statement, you are missing the point entirely of what I have claimed. I am claiming he means linguistic Arameans. Miaphysis (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Mor Dionysius Bar Salibi settles this debate easily, in the same page referring to "Aram our father", he states Jesus Christ was a Syrian (Suryoyo) - clearly referring to Him speaking Aramaic.

::::::::::::::“Our Lord was a Syrian, and they translated his teachings into their language..”

::::::::::::::https://archive.org/details/woodbrookestudie01theouoft/page/57/mode/1up Miaphysis (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Mor Dionysius Bar Salibi held the same view as the 1983 publication, [https://archive.org/details/mingana-a.-woodbrooke-studies-vol.-4-1931-dionysius-barsalibi-against-the-armenians/page/54/mode/2up], stating "It is we (Syriacs) 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 Syriacs 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.' We are called 'Syriacs' after the name of 'Syrus,' who built Antioch with its banlieue; and the country was called after him, 'Syria'."

:::::::::::::::He agains states this: "Syria was derived from Suros, either during his lifetime or after his death. This Suros had killed his brother and ruled over Mesopotamia. His whole kingdom was called Syria. The Syriacs were formerly called Arameans, but when Suros ruled over them, from then on they were called Syriacs." [https://archive.org/details/lexiconsyriacum02hassuoft/page/387/mode/2up]

:::::::::::::::He does this once again, against the Melchites: "Because of their hatred, they (the Greeks) call us Jacobites instead of Syriacs. In response, we say that the name Syriac, which you have taken from us, is superior, for it comes from Syrus, who ruled over Antioch, and the land was named Syria after him—just as your name, Greek, comes from Javan the pagan. However, we are the descendants of Aram, and in ancient times, we were called Arameans after his name." [https://www.vhmml.org/readingRoom/view/502157]

:::::::::::::::All these mentionings from him are of Aramean in a sense of race, not linguistics. Wlaak (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Discussionbottom}}

@Surayeproject3, Thank you for the help. One question, did you make sure that the citations in the lead were used elsewhere before removal? If not you will need to add them back in. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yes I was actually going to say, turns out removing the citations from the lead created new Harv errors, so I've re-added them back in. Until we find a place to put them elsewhere, I'll try to address other parts of the peer review. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 17:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@CF-501 Falcon Shifted most of the citations into the article, ones I did not do are because I did not find a place in the article to add them back. Warriorglance(talk to me) 07:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Warriorglance, Thank you! If they don't have a place in the article that content should also be moved to somewhere in the article.

::::Sorry for not helping out more right now. I have my next set of exams soon. I can finish the alt text soon. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 10:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Dont worry, Alt text is completed. Best luck on exams! Warriorglance(talk to me) 12:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you! CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Also, I can't find the three unsourced paragraphs the reviewer mentioned about. Are you able to find it? Warriorglance(talk to me) 07:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No clue about that one. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 10:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Warriorglance @CF-501 Falcon Is there any part of the peer review that hasn't yet been completed? Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Let's see, I guess only one task mentioned in the peer review is left, That is archiving online links. Warriorglance(talk to me) 09:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I've archived some of the links, up until citation 161. I'm not archiving anything with a Google Books link since only a few are archived from my observations, but since I'm not able to do them right away, here are the rest of the citations that need archiving.

::::::(Edit 5/9/2025: Archived some more links, 174, 202, 224 are unable to be archived) 230-231, 236, 239, 243-250, 253, 255-256, 258-261, 268-271, 275-276 Surayeproject3 (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems as theres an ongoing off-Wiki coordination editing the ongoing ANI dispute section as well as changing the lead. I do not want to revert anymore due to three-revert rule, if any of you guys could step in and restore the original version prior to this, it'd be appreciated. @CF-501 Falcon, @Warriorglance

I will only be able to change the ANI disputed section for it to not be a entire version, as the rest as been edited with numerous edits, would require a revert. Dozens of IP-edits after the Wiki user started editing. Wlaak (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:went ahead and restored Warriorglance's version. large edits from IP address post-Wiki User edits were ongoing for 30 minutes and considering the ANI section was changed as well, including the lead, i hope there is no issue with restoring, despite the three-revert rule. Wlaak (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with you @Wlaak.

::Dear ip-user, Please propose the huge edits in the talk page first and achieve a consensus from other editors. Warriorglance(talk to me) 03:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Miaphysis, @Warriorglance, @Shmayo, @Surayeproject3, and @Wlaak. Please list the changes you want to make under the section header. Refrain from writing walls of text, same for long-winded responses. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:For starters, these were huge and drastic changes, I suggest we revert back to the original and work from there. Currently it is a mess and would be much more of a headache to work with if original version is not present, we'd have to take a few steps back before being able to take steps forward. Wlaak (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::What is the "original"? CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I do not mean original as in the sense of the first one but the one prior to the undiscussed changes that occurred some 12h ago. Latest one would be Warriorglance's version. Wlaak (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You know what @Wlaak, propose the changes in a bulleted or numbered manner, as in points. I am just fed up of reading almost 500-700 words. I think we all can agree on proposing changes like this. pinging {{ping|CF-501 Falcon}} also. Warriorglance(talk to me) 12:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Warriorglance, I completely agree. These response are extremely big, mostly without reason. Be concise. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 12:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:* I suggest, reverting back to @Warriorglance version, prior to all of this.

:* From there on, other editors may contribute with their suggestions.

:* As of now, a mistranslation from Aramaic was put on the page, the removal of Mor Ignatius Aphrem II and Mor Ignatius Aphrem I are challenged, although I might agree with the removal of Mor Ignatius Aphrem II, as it was merely a booklet on Sayfo.

:* Mor Ignatius Aphrem I, should be highlighted, it was during his Patriarchate the Syriac Orthodox Church formally declared its identity, it is the most documented one as well.

:* Keep the paragraph from Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, as it was during his Patriarchate the Holy Synod affirmed the Suryoyo identity, and two years later affirmed that the Suryoye/Syrians were the Arameans, we have to get both views in, for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

:* Removal of "In a 2015 interview..." source leads to a YouTube video from a channel called "Assyrians". I do not doubt the authenticity of the video, but if we include this one, we should include his other views where he has stated that the ancestors of the Suryoye are the Arameans (timestamp 41:45 of [https://www.facebook.com/100063456529741/videos/442827838711374 this] as well as the booklet of Sayfo, a publication from the Church)

:* Rearrange the structure of paragraphs, keep the first paragraph as it is, the we do chronological order, beginning with the 1952 identity statement from the Church from Mor Ignatius Aphrem I, then Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, then Mor Ignatius Aphrem II (if we decide to still have or not). We then should have the "Although the Church is not ethnically exclusive..." It would basically be as the version prior to this, except for the possible removal of Mor Ignatius Aphrem II paragraph and the inclusion of "auxiliary cultural traditions..." although it may need improvements/if it even is relevant.

:Wlaak (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I changed the Aramaic translation of Mor Ignatius Yacoub III to a paraphrase, and the Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas paragraph is kept in the article.

::I have argued in the name & identity section that this layout of the article does not serve neutrality justice and immediately seeks to give a pro-Aramean impression by citing "Arameans" as founding the Church and citing Mor Ignatius Barsoum, as important as his view may be, is far from the only declaration of ethnicity and is not without controversy. The layout as it was prior also seemed to downplay his support for the Assyrian identity and presented an explicitly inaccurate perception of him also holding the "Chaldean identity", which I have shown he had nothing to do with it per Dr. Racho Donef and Henri Gouraud.

::Thus, both the Aramean and Assyrian identities ought to be covered from the perspective of the Church, identity, and its adherents, and this layout of the thread does it the most justice. Miaphysis (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It served both names, sorry but it is undoubtedly evident that the Syriac Orthodox Church has preferred a Aramean identity. Assyro-Chaldean delegation was represented by the Patriarch, it ended with "two great empires of antiquity, Chaldea and Assyria, which were the cradles of civilization and which were masters of their own destinies for many centuries, after the eclipse of their stunning glory have left Assyro-Chaldean descendants, most of whom still today live on the soil of their homeland." [https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.31826/9781463209490-017/html?srsltid=AfmBOoohB5j7BeYPPjM8MgosRNaY2ZN5Wm0eyuvTZuoKcmQdf3HbIJ8_] To avoid WP:Bludgeon, I will no more argue. Wlaak (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I argue the article as it is right now does sufficient justice to the ethnic dispute, namely listing both the Assyrian and Aramean identity and its proponents and those who are neutral.

:The only edit I would propose further is to separate the contention from its usage, as many claimed both identities, many were neutral, and there's also a sense in which Aramean is used linguistically and not ethnic, i.e. to refer to the first Aramaic-speaking disciples of Christ (Jewish and namely gentile) which is ignored. I believe the previous revision does not do justice and gives a certain biased impression of what it means for the Church to be Aramean. Miaphysis (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello everyone, hope you're doing well. I skimmed lightly the recent discussions on the identity section, honestly it was incredibly long and drawn out so I didn't really pay attention, but from what I can gather, I am inclined to agree with @Miaphysis and his stance on the section. So far, the main point of dispute that has prompted the ANI is an WP:UNDUE representation of the Aramean identity of the SOC. I as well as @Shmayo and Miaphysis have disputed this as well. There is no doubt that it is important to include, but at the same time, the section needs to be balanced to discuss the Assyrian identity as well. Additionally, the issue of the naming dispute should also probably be discussed more in depth to address why these distinctions are so important in the first place.

:I am unsure of why Wlaak is mentioning Chaldean identity with Aphrem Barsoum and the Paris Peace Conference. Chaldean identity as we know it today didn't exist at that time (even today, it is a minority within the US-Assyrian diaspora) and the delegation clearly represented Chaldean Catholics as ethnic Assyrians. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hi, I restored to the version prior to the big changes, just to let you all know. It had been restored by me and Warriorglance, yet reverted again.

::@Surayeproject3 can you list in bullet form what changes you want? @Miaphysis as well.

::I think I agree with the removal of Mor Ignatius Aphrem II, as did by User:Miaphysis. If including the interview in User:Miaphysis version, I think we may need to include the other instances where he states otherwise and who these "Suryoye" are. We could implement that auxiliary tradition again, Miaphysis seems to have found a source for it.

::What suggestions do you guys have? Wlaak (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I believe the version made just prior to editing it is ideal aside from what I said previously.

:::I'm open to adding other instances of Mor Aphrem's statements on identity however this must not be conflated with an "official view of the Church".

:::I still hold "According to the tradition, the Syriac Orthodox Church was rooted in Antioch through the efforts of Syriac-Arameans and other Gentile converts." must be removed and that the previous paraphrase of Mor Ignatius Ya'qub III's position must be included. Miaphysis (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I understand, but not all think it is ideal.

::::Ok, I also agree with the part about Mor Ignatius Ya'qub III's position, however, about the "Syriac Orthodox Church was rooted..." there are even secondary sources on, which I can reference in the article.

::::We must find a way to properly translate the Aramaic text, and decide how to write it. Wlaak (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have presented my case as to why Aramean is meant linguistically and not ethnically and that is why the emphasis is used.

:::::Shamosho Daniel Kakish explains how we are to imagine the origins of the Syriac Orthodox Church well here on Ask Abouna (run by the pro-Aramean Fr. George Bassous). It is specifically taught that the Syriac Orthodox Church traces itself to the Aramaic speaking disciples of Christ, including Jews, who preached to Aramaic speaking gentiles namely in Beth Nahrain.

:::::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkGbul3DXQQ Miaphysis (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Not all the time can we assume the Aramean name is purely linguistic, in the context of the paragraphs we have, and the sources referenced, it is used ethnically. We cannot use a YouTube video of a YouTuber as a source.

::::::Let's come to agreement in what we can improve, for example, you were in opposition of the Mor Ignatius Aphrem II paragraph? Should we remove it? Wlaak (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The YouTube channel in question are actual Syriac Orthodox clergy and a specifically pro-Aramean platform, it's something that helps understand what the Church means when they say Aramean founders. "Syrian" and "Aramean" are used linguistically both in English Arabic and Syriac Aramaic, there's nothing explicitly pointing to that, this gives the impression that ethnic Arameans founding the church is the main position, while only some individuals hold other views as their private opinion.

:::::::I would rather keep the Mor Ignatius Aphrem II paragraph (while maintaining the relevant additions) and remove the Aramean claim to founding the Church above while specifying. Non-Suryoye will be confused if they see the Aramean claim as the first thing on the page as something well established, and then see other articles like Assyrian people claim the Syriac Orthodox are Assyrians, something that ends up damaging both names. Both the Assyrian and Aramean claims need to be laid out clearly, as well as those that uphold both at the same time, and those that remain neutral. Miaphysis (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::YouTube videos of people creating videos on their interpretation of the terms is not a source we can use. For example, in the context of speaking "we are the descendants of the Arameans", this is purely lineage wise, they are speaking of Arameans ethnically, not "we are the descendants of the Aramaic language", it doesn't make sense. We have to go with what sources say.

::::::::Okay, I also feel that way, we can add the neutrality of Mor Ignatius Aphrem II, about the Suryoyo name, I will see if we can find a better source than a YouTube video. Wlaak (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::But that's not what Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas claimed when referencing those Arameans, he explicitly cites the Apostles as being linguistically سريان. Even if we were to put that aside it's at least unclear whether the Oromoyotho is linguistic or ethnic; thus you cannot have the first sentence of the second paragraph be an ethnic claim, especially when it ignores the Jewish Aramaic speakers key role.

:::::::::There needs to be a clear delineation of everything.

:::::::::The full interview in Turoyo is on Assyria TV. Miaphysis (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I think we should come to a consensus quickly based on the points we discussed and then change the article on that basis.

::::::::::@Surayeproject3 @CF-501 Falcon @Warriorglance @Wlaak Miaphysis (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::"The Syriac language is the Aramaic language itself, and the Arameans are the Syrians themselves. Whoever has made a distinction between them has erred. Through the passage of time and developments, Syriac appeared with the Aramaic to call anybody speaking the language - it is a linguistic name. After the spread of Christianity, the name Syriac outweighted the Aramaic, because the disciples, the first preachers of Christianity were Syrians linguistically. In the early centuries, when it was revealed that the disciples spoke Syriac, every Aramean who accepted their teachings and became a Christian, changed his original Aramaic name with a Syrian name."

::::::::::He explicitly mentions the Syrians as being Arameans ethnically, and Syriac being Aramaic lingustically, regarding the disciples, he says they were Syrians, not as Arameans, but only linguistically.

::::::::::This statement is indeed ethnic. Wlaak (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::When the "Syrians linguistically" is translated as "Syriac speakers" why can't Aramean as Aramaic speakers? Why does that not make sense? The argument goes in circles and will end up with WP:Bludgeon. Using these statements to claim in the first sentence of the second paragraph is clearly giving a representation and impression that the Aramean viewpoint is correct from the Syriac Orthodox stance.

:::::::::::So far this edit has received good reception and should be conceded upon if any further agreement is to be made. Miaphysis (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::It is evident that in the text, he separates between linguistics and ethnics, he says Syrians are Arameans and Syriac is Aramaic. It will just turn into, like you said, WP:Bludgeon. Filing RfC from a uninvolved person, might be good. Wlaak (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Until then, the disputed parts should be removed, and the rest of what we agree upon should be implemented. Other pro-Aramean statements will stay to maintain a clear balance. Miaphysis (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I do not thing that is how things work, just because consensus is waiting, the disputed parts will remain. So, the parts will remain until a consensus is reached, from my understanding.

::::::::::::::What is the rest we agreed upon? Did you find a source about Mor Aphrem II's neutrality? I've been looking but haven't found any source apart from that YouTube video from a Assyrian channel, I do not think it is RS. I will try and implement the auxiliary traditions with the source you gave earlier. Wlaak (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The page should at least be reverted to what it was before the edits leading to the ANI, otherwise nothing is stopping anyone from changing it right now and I could change it to my revision which you changed earlier today saying you would keep it like that while waiting for a concensus. Thus any agreement to this revision is concession to you as an individual and is not mutual.

:::::::::::::::So far we agreed upon Mor Aphrem II's neutrality (regardless of the host of the source used), auxiliary traditions, Mor Yacoub III's view of Suryoyo identity. Miaphysis (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Well, the version prior to you editing was how it was for a few weeks, waiting for consensus etc. We did get somewhat of a consensus for that version until it was disputed by another editor, this is what consensus is about.

::::::::::::::::We are trying to implement things we both have agreed upon, Mor Aphrem II's neutrality and auxiliary traditions, I am looking for a source about Mor Aphrem II's neutrality, a YouTube video will not do it I think, but sure, we can have it until we find other. Wlaak (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I just realized you had reverted prior to me finishing the implementation of the agreement we had on the neutrality and kingdoms of the past.

::::::::::::::::"No reason to change to what it was before and no agreement with any other editors to revert to this revision"

::::::::::::::::Mate, it is you that should have agreement from other editors to implement controversial stuff, it needs consensus, consensus is not needed to revert something that is adding controversial things with no consensus. Wlaak (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::That is not how Wikipedia works, nothing prevents changing the page with sources which you're reverting to maintain your version of the page. Others have stated that what you added was a WP:UNDUE representation of the Aramean position yet nobody reverted to the previous version. Miaphysis (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::WikiPedia works on consensus, if your edits are being challenged you have to seek consensus for them, we are working on balancing the article, whereas two additions were already implemented. Wlaak (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Miaphysis Now that you mention Daniel Kakish and Ask Abouna, they actually have an hour long discussion together where they hear each other's arguments. Here's the link: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYpJWW9UMdI]

::::::::I'm not sure that the video specifically can be cited, but the sources that are mentioned within it can probably be used. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:*I am suggesting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&oldid=1286743556#Name_and_identity this version] as a basis, with the addition of the second paragraph of User:Miaphysis ("Although the Church is not ethnically exclusive..."; noticed it was a part of the article prior to this discussion, it is only partly included in my linked version at the end, and I agree that it should the second paragraph).

:*This version exclude any assumed "stance" by patriarchs.

:*It does cover the Synod's statement on the naming dispute, in a better way than the current. If relevant at all.

:*We should rely on secondary WP:RS and avoid WP:OR (which the current version does not...). It would look like this (excluding refs, see linked version):

{{Show_hide_box|Suggestion|contents=

Syriac-speaking Christians have referred to themselves as "Sūryoyē/Ōromōyē/Ōṯurōyē" in native Aramaic terms based on their ethnic identity. In most languages, a unique name has long been used to distinguish the church from the polity of Syria. In Arabic (the official language of Syria), the church is known as the "Kenissa Suryaniya" as the term "Suryani" identifies the Syriac language and people. Chalcedonians refer to the church as "Jacobite" (after Jacob Baradaeus) since the schism that followed the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. English-speaking historians identified the church as the "Syrian Church". The English term "Syrian" was used to describe the community of Syriacs in ancient Syria. In the 15th century, the term "Orthodox" (from Greek: "orthodoxía"; "correct opinion") was used to identify churches that practiced the set of doctrines believed by the early Christians. Since 1922, the term "Syrian" started being used for things named after the Syrian Federation. Hence, in 2000, the Holy Synod ruled that the church be named as "Syriac Orthodox Church" after the Syriac language, the official liturgical language of the church.

Although the Church is not ethnically exclusive, the main ethnic group in the community contests its ethnic identification as Assyrian and Aramean. "Suryoye" is the term used to identify the Syriacs in the diaspora. Church traditions crystallized into ethnogenesis through the preservation of their stories and customs by the 12th century. Since the 1910s, the identity of Syriac Orthodoxy in the Ottoman Empire was principally religious and linguistic. The Syriac Orthodox identity included auxiliary cultural traditions of the Assyrian Empire and Aramean kingdoms.

In 1981, to address ongoing name conflicts in the diaspora, the Holy Synod stated that the church is known as the Syrian Orthodox Church (Idto Suryoyto Orthodoxoyto Dantiokh), its language the Syriac language (leshono Suryoyo), and its people the Syrian people ('amo Suryoyo).

In recent works, Assyrian-American historian Sargon Donabed has pointed out that parishes in the US were originally using Assyrian designations in their official English names, also noting that in some cases those designations were later changed to Syrian and then to Syriac, while three parishes still continue to use Assyrian designations.

}}

Shmayo (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:there are plenty of WP:RS about Mor Ignatius Aphrem I, most of these secondary sources acknowledge the statement to be from the Church, which it was. He was the one to first announce a identity upon the Church and to implement this identity. read this article, it states that the Patriarchate "is the general administrator to Holy Synod and supervises the spiritual, administrative, and financial matters of the church."

:I find it more than relevant enough to include at least Mor Ignatius Aphrem I statement, it is at the end of the day a statement from the Church.

:"Assyrian-American historian Sargon Donabed" is not needed either, we could just write "historian Sargon Donabed" Wlaak (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I second this, although I believe the version I have to be more comprehensive and to cover the Aramean dispute. The Synod's stances is more relevant and official than the Patriarchs' stances which can cause an endless loop of argumentation. Miaphysis (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::"is the general administrator to Holy Synod and supervises the spiritual, administrative, and financial matters of the church."

::it is not merely statements from the Patriarchate, it is statements from the Church.

::"In 1952, the Syriac Orthodox Church officially forbade the term, ending its use as loosely synonymous to ‘Syriac’ or ‘Aramean’."[https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315708195-39/syriac-identity-modern-era-heleen-murre-van-den-berg] Wlaak (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::They do not represent binding decisions of the Church, and "forbade" ought to explain the existence of parishes with the Assyrian name since then. To what capacity? It's clear that the Aramean name is not binding in any name like Suryoyo/Syriac/سرياني is. Miaphysis (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I am citing WP:RS. Wlaak (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::None of them show anything from the Church that puts the Aramean name as official any more than the Assyrian. The "Assyrian Orthodox Church" was used yet "Aramean Orthodox Church" never was, Mor Aphrem Barsoum changed Assyrian to Syrian. Miaphysis (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Indeed. Even the World Council of Arameans petitioned for the Aramean name to be included in the church, but this was rejected. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSKkY9i25Q8] Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::A “identity” does not need to be present in the title of the Church. As of 1952, the Syriac Orthodox Church rejected the Assyrian name, emphasizing descent from Arameans. Again, an identity the Church holds, does not need to be present in the title of the Church. See my other comment which has three WP:RS mentioning the Syriac Orthodox Church rejecting the Assyrian name. Wlaak (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::None of these are statements officially upholding the Aramean identity. The Holy Synod is. Once again this will turn to WP:Bludgeon so I won't argue further. I also suggest an RfC. Miaphysis (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::All three WP:RS affirm that the Church itself rejected the Assyrian name, ending its synonymous to Aramean and Syriac, by reading the 1952 statement itself, descent from Arameans is emphasized. Reviewer is free to check it. [https://archive.org/details/syrianchurchofan0000mari/page/43/mode/2up] Wlaak (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with this version being used as a basis for now. Then afterwards there can be a more in-depth discussion about including more information on both sides of the argument of identity, including information that is being disputed and is proposing to be included. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::We should RfC, as of 1952, the Syriac Orthodox Church rejected the term "Assyrian", in favor of Aramean or Syriac, it was not a "stance" from specific patriarchs, it was a statement from the Church. [https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/198795/1/198795.pdf][https://archive.org/details/the-syrian-orthodox-christians-in-the-late-ottoman-period-and-beyond-crisis-then-revival/page/34/mode/2up][https://open.bu.edu/items/9af1e5da-fa4d-4808-9afe-d294580fe52c] Wlaak (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Who is going to file it? Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Doesn’t really matter, I can do it when I’m home. Wlaak (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. Miaphysis (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@CF-501 Falcon Please request an RFC, this discussion is getting nowhere. Warriorglance(talk to me) 17:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Wlaak and @Miaphysis. Holy, you guys love to talk. I came back, after 6 hours, to 41 notifications. This has roughly 3,500 words; a literal essay about one section. @Warriorglance and @Surayeproject3, I will file a RfC about what name should the church be called, Assyrian or Aramean. @Wlaak and @Miaphysis, you are edit warring, Stop. I see seven reverts combined from you two. I haven't checked if it is 3RR but it still is edit warring. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@CF-501 Falcon note that despite all this, @Miaphysis still pushed his edit in, without even coming to a conclusion in the talk page. Wlaak (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Wlaak, I have been paying attention. But, thank you for telling me. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 15:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@CF-501 Falcon @Wlaak @Shmayo @Surayeproject3 @Miaphysis It's been a while since the last edit. What do you say about nominating this article to GA. I find the current "name and identity" section to be okay. Also, this article follows the WP:GACR. Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::i do not find the section OK at all, its clear what has been done to it Wlaak (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Warriorglance, The peer review needs to finish first. You should ping the reviewer and let them know that all the changes have been made. If there are any more things they will let us know or they will close it. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Warriorglance I'm sure that @CF-501 Falcon may have seen from the ANI, but in case not, Wlaak has been indefinitely topic banned from Assyrian-related articles on Wikipedia. Per the policy on topic bans, he is no longer considered a party to the discussion here. That pretty much solves the issue regarding the ANI and the section being disputed, which I think looks fine as is.

::::::::Two things before we submit for GA:

::::::::* I still haven't finished archiving all the online links, so I’ll try to finish that today and then comment under the peer review.

::::::::* Seems there’s a bunch of new Harv errors on the article, do we want to get those fixed before submitting for review?

::::::::Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Update: Finished archiving the links; 174, 202, 224, 239, 245, 259, and 269 are unable to be archived. I'll let you guys decide how you want to handle it from here, I realized that until we fix the Harv errors maybe we should hold off until commenting under the peer review? Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Surayeproject3 Yeah, I also suggest we fix the HARV errors first before pinging. Warriorglance(talk to me) 16:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::: I agree. Shmayo (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::ok, thanks! Warriorglance(talk to me) 16:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I find this section to be a good compromise between everything suggested so far. Miaphysis (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Warriorglance, @Surayeproject3, @Shmayo, @Miaphysis. This seems to have ground to a halt. What is there left to do before GA? @Warriorglance, are you fine if I ask the peer review if there is anything else to do? if nothing else remains, I will nominate it for GA. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Note: I fixed the last HARV Error. There are a bunch of warnings because we have a reference in the works cited section but it is unused as a reference in an sfn. We must move it to a further reading section or cite it somewhere. @Warriorglance, would you like to help me cite those somewhere? CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::@CF-501 Falcon I'd recommend moving it down to Further reading section or other suitable section. From my observation, there are too many unused sources to be added in the article. The article already has sufficient sources to back up claims. Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Okay, Sounds good. I will try to do it soon. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::And regarding the peer review, this is the only thing left to do, After this, we can ping the reviewer. Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@CF-501 Falcon @Warriorglance I began the process of moving the sources down to Further reading to solve the Harv errors. If you want to just copy and paste the rest of the Harv sources to that section, than the article should be good to apply for GA status. Surayeproject3 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@CF-501 Falcon @Warriorglance I've taken some time today to include references for some of the sources that still have Harv errors. I'm not sure if more Harv errors were created after I began moving some of the sources to Further reading, but I think there's too many publications on this article to discount them and leave them all in one section.

::::I think before requesting a peer review, we can tackle the shorter publications and add them into the article, then move the longer publications to Further reading. After a GA review, I'd like to explore the possibility of re-examining the article and moving to FA status, including by tackling these sources where applicable. Let me know what you guys think. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Surayeproject3 100% support you! But the thing is that, peer review is already going on, so I think you meant introducing the short publications before GA review. The thing is GA standard does not have stringent criteria so I think after addressing the HARV problem, we can complete the peer review and nominate it for GA review.

:::::P. S : wish I could help more, but I'm kinda busy these days. Anyway, I will try my best to help you guys. Cheers, Warriorglance(talk to me) 14:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Surayeproject3, that sounds great! I can certainly help with whatever is needed after the GA nomination. Do you have anything specific that you would want me to help with? Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 12:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes please, could you take a look at some of the sources that still have Harv errors and add references for them into the article if you can access them? Only the articles that are about 15-25 pages long or a length similar. The rest you can just add into the "Further reading" section. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hey again guys, I've just added some more references. Part of them relates to the issue of identity and is included in the modern history section; given recent disputes, I would like to ask you guys review the added information so we can come to a consensus on neutrality and whether it should be included, revised, or excluded. I'll ping @Shmayo and @Miaphysis on this as well since they were also involved with discussions related to this topic, in case they have their own points to add.

::::::I expect that I'll be busy over the course of the next month, so I may not have time to add more content immediately. If you guys think that the Harv errors should just be solved now to finish the peer review, we can go ahead with that. Hope to hear from you soon! Surayeproject3 (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I am extremely busy until about June 14, I can help then. Thank you for all the work! (I will be busy from the 20th to the 26th after that). Best Regards, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 10:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you for the work, and the ping. I do not have much to add. I think that the participation in the delegation to the Paris Peace Conference could be mentioned already in the "Interwar period" section. On Aphrem I Barsoum and the "1945-2000" section, perhaps the name changes in the US could be included for it to be more relevant. Shmayo (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

An editor @TheLionHasSeen has been constantly reverting edits done by me and other editors without any explanation or discussion. His latest reversion involves my edit, where i corrected the statement which classified the Syriac Orthodox church as an Oriental Orthodox Denomination to an Oriental Orthodox Church and replaced a reimagined fan made patriarchal emblem with the actual emblem used by the Syriac orthodox patriarchate. The fan made emblem is used only in the EAE website and no where else is it used, he has also removed the type of the church as Antiochian from the main template. The editor then went on to revert all this by citing Wikipedia policies like advocacy and NPOV and with no explanation in edit summaries. The editor also issued warnings to me without even justifying his changes, The editor is obligated to explain how its advocacy to correct the classification of the church as a church and not as a separate denomination and how there is a violation of NPOV by replacing the reimagined fan made emblem of the patriarchate with the one used by the patriarchate. The editor has also targeted my edits in other articles in the same way. Livingbeta (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:Your edits were reverted on multiple articles by other editors and I, because they have been full of very poor, English grammar. They also implemented spurious sources, which, while in good faith, were not found to be encylopediac contributions to this encyclopedia. Most of your contributions have been determined by others to also be suspected of POV-pushing for this church and its autonomous Jacobite Syrian Church in India. Plus, a church and denomination are interchangeable terms in the English language. Ever since being on this encyclopedia, you, @Livingbeta, have been nothing more than belligerent. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::@TheLionHasSeen to be precise it is only you and another new editor whose probably from the MOSC church who is removing my edits constantly from all articles i edit based on vague/dubious claims with no explanation. Also pin point to which spurious source(misleading source) was added by me to an article, and also i don't see other editors other the you and that new wiki editor calling my edits as POV-pushing other than you in all the articles i edit.

::In this talk page provide English dictionary or non-dictionary sources which state that both church and denomination are interchangeable terms(your statement is a factual inaccuracy BTW [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/denomination], [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/church]). This is a serious problem as you have been targeting all my edits everyday and reverting it without engaging in a discussion or explanation and just right away warning almost like harassing me.

::you also don't substantiate on the reason or give any explanation in the above reply for 2 questions asked, your above reply kind of looks like a para badmouthing based on the what you interpret about me, but no valid explanation given for the current dispute about your revert in this article.

::Calling me "Belligerent" AKA hostile seems inappropriate and not something you can say when you have never discussed or talked with me in an wiki talk pages. Livingbeta (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You must definitely be WP:NOTHERE. I am not a part of the Malankara Church, nor am I part of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. As for the other contributor, I don't know of them either. Oh, and @Pbritti is not a new user, if that's who you are referring to. No one here is trying to harass you; however, your commentary in multiple talk pages can definitely come off as aggressive. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)