Maronites (including those in Cyprus) and Melkites are not "Syriacs" according to most observers and scholars who wrote about the Middle Eastern ethnic groups or other minorities, some activists are making a mess of all this with no scientific backing at all, the "Syriacs/miniproject" page proves that the purpose is of a political/nationalist/religious nature, nothing to do with the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Pylambert22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the title fromSyriacs toSyriac Christianity, as the articles included in the box are linked to Syriac Christianity and not to the controversial Syriacs article: there is no such thing as a "Syriacs" ethnic group or nation including all the religious groups mentioned in the box. Those who advocate the use of "Syriacs" instead of "Assyrians" failed to sustain their position with any scientific source (sociology, political science, history, books or articles published in scientific journals or by scientific presses). --Pylambert13:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check out theFinal Declaration of the foundation convention of theEuropean Syriac Union, representing the following organisations:
- Syrianska-Assyriska Riksförbundet i Sverige
- Renyo Hiro Magazine (Sweden)
- Union of the Syriac Associations in Switzerland
- Union of the Assyrian-Syriac Associations in Germany
- Bethnahrin Information Bureau in the Netherlands
- Institut Mésopotamie de Bruxelles
- Centre de Peuple de Mésopotamie
- Assyrian-Syriac Culture Club of Vienna
- Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac Union (ACSU)
- Union of the Free Women of Bethnahrin (HNHB)
- Union of the Youth of Mesopotamia (HCB)
- Benne, you're definitely a very bad student if you rely for your thesis on that sort of sources, I was referring to "any scientific source (sociology, political science, history, books or articles published in scientific journals or by scientific presses)", not to activists for one side or the other. You may have some linguistic knowledge about Aramaic languages, but you lack any historical and sociological knowledge about them, and your interventions on wikipedia only bring more confusion. --Pylambert18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're definitely a very arrogant contributor. How can scientists determine someone's identity? They should rely on what the peoplethemselves choose as a self-appellation. Just waving with titles of books written by self-proclaimed scientists doesn't mean your argumentation is scientifically sound.
- And if you want names of scientists: check out Theodor Nöldeke's Syriac grammar, Hans Hollerweger, John Joseph:Assyria and Syria: Synonyms? -- you'll find a refutation of your claim that Armenian "Asori" means "Assyrians".
- Linguists are not reliable on this, sociolinguists do. Besides, Assyrians is the official ethnonym used not only in Armenia (official government documents and websites in English use it too), but also in Australia (censuses) and New Zealand (censuses), seeAssyrian diaspora with census categories and results. Syriacs, in English, only refers to the Syriac Orthodox and Catholics, idem in French withSyriaques. The discussion over Assyrians and Syrians in the Armenian language in John Joseph's article doesnot concern present-day Assyrians butvery clearly the Antiquity, yet another example of your trying to mislead people with false statements and misinterpreting scientific datas ! And he quotes himself very clearly on the matter of present-day Assyrians: "What I did write in my Preface was that the Nestorians “are known also as Assyrians,a name commonly used in reference to them only since the First World War.”[Italics added.]".Pylambert06:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Before lecturing other people about their own ethnicity maybe you should
study a little further the subject ... and why not meet some syriacs !The question of the name of our people is an unresolved question that has beendebated for centuries. But all the different "factions" : chaldeans, assyrians,arameans or syriacs allways said that they were one people.and by the way maronites considers themselves syriacs too ! you obviously never met one ...
Nestorian is a misnomer, an insult to a member of the Church of the East
[edit]That is a term used by non Church of the East members given to them by the Byzantines. It was an insult then and an Insult now. Aturaye has always been the name of the nation. Some say Asuraye, Athuraye, or Ashuraye. This is before the British "discovered" them.
There is no dispute anymore.
[edit]If you read the title it says Syriac Christian. Not Syriacs.
- Not for long, Benne has already changed it back, so I put back the accuracy banner. --Pylambert10:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else who objects to this template?
[edit]At the moment, onlyPylambert appears to be objecting to the template. The only objective of the template is to provide a device for showing the various self-appellations of the people who have for centuries been calling themselves Suryoye/Suryaye, an Aramaic name meaning simply "Syrians". More recently, the name "Syriacs" has been coined to avoid confusion with the citizens of the Arab Republic of Syria. --Benne ['bɛnə](talk)00:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I indeed object for all reasons already explained above, and in related articles. Its content is outrageously propagandist (it points towards a few Zionist-like anti-Arab Middle Eastern Christian activists, mostly in North America, who are trying to build the concept of a non-Arab Christian minority and to convince the U.S. authorities to help them create a sort of non-Arab Christian Israel in the Middle East, preferably in Lebanon) as there is no serious scientific reference:
- that uses "Syriacs" as a designation for present-day Neo-Aramaic Christians (Assyrians, or "Assyrian people"), as "Syriacs" is only used in English and in French for the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic churches
- that includes in the category of present-day Neo-Aramaic Christians followers of the Maronite Catholic Church, of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and of the Antiochian Orthodox Church
- that lists Cypriot Maronite Arabic and Lebanese Arabic among the languages of the present-day Neo-Aramaic Christians
Obviously,Benne coined the term Syriacs himself and wrongfully tries to impose it on wikipedia and on all articles pertaining to Assyrians. This is not acceptable. I always try to put references for statistics (seeAssyrian diaspora e.g.) and for other contributions, or even a larger bibliography when possible (Assyrians in Iran e.g.).Benne on the contrary seems to be getting information directly from some voices (like Joan of Arc) and neglects to sustain his modifications and creations by any scientific reference. He even misuses existing references, see above ("Sure there is"). --Pylambert00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Based onGoogle hits, I don't think he made up the term himself. --Khoikhoi00:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Pylambert, I back you on everything, but I have to disagree with you on this. Benne did not coined the term Syriacs himself. It has always been used by despora christians of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.Chaldean01:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The designation exists indeed, but it applies to only two Churches, with the less numerous followers among the Assyrians, but including millions of Indians (in India) who are surely not ethnically related to present-day Neo-Aramaic Christians. --Pylambert01:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think thatSyriacs could be defined as an ethnicity, based on a common language and religious culture, but to avoid deletion, I moved this template toSyriac Christianity, a title that might just as well or perhaps even better define that shared identity. In the end, though the people have been referred to asSyrians for centuries, the nameSyriacs is of quite recent origin, and apparently not accepted by all the people concerned. --Benne ['bɛnə](talk)21:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This template survived a discussion on TfD. SeeWikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 15. -Splashtalk01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonaramaic languages
[edit]It doesn't make sense. And if where going to do that then why not addIraqi arabic andTurkish?Chaldean23:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You've got a point. In that case German, Swedish, and Dutch should be included as well. However, I thinkGarshuni deserves to be mentioned, since it is used by Syriacs only. --Benne ['bɛnə](talk)18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your right.Chaldean22:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, the template does just look organized. Maybe we should give it a new look.Chaldean23:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And alsoCypriot Maronite Arabic needs to be included, I think.
- Sure, go ahead. I was the one who started this template, but I'm not very talented when it comes to graphics ... --Benne ['bɛnə](talk)11:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assyrian Evangelical Church
[edit]Is it that necessary to list it? I thought it would be good to list just the major ones. All these small Churches are really irrelevant as they are fairly new and have contributed to Syriac Christianity very little historically.Chaldean21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've got a point, but I just moved it from the list of self-appellations to the list of churches, where it --self evidently-- more appropriate. In what extent is the Ancient Church of the East relevant, in your opinion? --Benne ['bɛnə](talk)13:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the Ancient Church of the East is more relevant then these small protestant Assyrian churches because of numbers.Chaldean13:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
stop linking toAramaeans, the article on the pre-Christian people. I realize that modern Assyrians arealso called Aramaeans. They are still discussed atAssyrian people, which clearly states "also called Aramaeans" from the very beginning.dab(𒁳)06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to put the template on its feet by listing "Churches" as the main division of "Syriac Christianity", and by avoiding repetition of links. This might still be made more useful by some sort of tabular arrangement that makes clear which group and which language is associated to which Church.dab(𒁳)07:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, linking to Aramaeans is redundant. But Benne is over-sensitive about this. —EliasAlucard|Talk 09:13 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
If we did have an article on "Aramaean Assyrians", as we have "Chaldean Assyrians" or "Syriac Assyrians" (the latter is a particularly pointless coinage), we could link to it. But as long as we don'thave an article, we cannot link to it. If we want to create a "Aramaean Assyrians", we would of course need to show that this is a valid subgroup along the lines of "Syriac Assyrians". Looking at the evidence available on-wiki, the situation present itself as follows (please expand and correct):
dab(𒁳)08:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The table is not wholly evident. Not sure ifSaint Thomas Christians qualify as a separate cetagory outside of the West/East Syrian scope?Chicbyaccident (talk)14:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Regardingthis edit. Please note that the column in question refers to present communions. "Church of the East" is thus misplaced in that column. It is not analogous to the other communions (Eastern Catholic,Eastern Orthodox, etc.).Assyrian Church of the East areAncient Church of the East are independent communions. That is why there were listed as "Independent" previously. Correctly so. That is why your edit is problematic. Furthermore,Chaldean Catholic Church also descends from the Church of East.Chicbyaccident (talk)18:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯19:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Koavf: Thanks to you! An honour to come across a Wikipedia user like you. Happy continuous editing!Chicbyaccident (talk)19:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicbyaccident: Can you explain how the East Syriac Indian denominations arose out of a West Syriac tradition, as it presents now?Srnec (talk)15:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The template just indicates thatMalankara Rite is consideredWest Syriac in accordance with the lead section and sources ofMalankara Rite. However you may suspend that assertion, shuld you wish to.Chicbyaccident (talk)15:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Date of foundation for Church of the East
[edit]I've changed the date of foundation of theChurch of the East from 431 to the 4th century. Although theNestorian Schism helped to consolidate the Church of the East as a separate church, the existence of the Church as a separate organisation predates the Council of Ephesus—something that's described in the history section of the article for the Church. Better dates would be theCouncil of Seleucia-Ctesiphon of 410 or the foundation of the Catholicate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in the early 4th century. I've opted for the latter as the most relevant to this template. Tagging@PPEMES since they entered 431. —Nizolan(talk)14:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (Also, even if it were dated to the Nestorian Schism, 431 would still be inaccurate as the Church didn't accept Nestorius until some time later. In contrast to the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Church of the East emerged because of the practical independence of Christians in the Persian Empire from Rome, rather than in response to a particular council. —Nizolan(talk)14:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]
"Link to a disambiguation page"
[edit]I.e.Patriarchate of Antioch.The Banner opposed this, but I don't really know of any better solution. Do you have any? The thing is thatWP:NPOV has to be satisfied as well.PPEMES (talk)14:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You can remove the long story you have added...The Banner talk15:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What story do you mean?PPEMES (talk)15:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The part that had removed and that you reverted back in.The Banner talk15:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, why delete information essential to explaining what the divisions are about?PPEMES (talk)15:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Why extending a template into an article when its sole purpose is to be a navigation aid?The Banner talk15:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a template, not an article, but it is supposed to superficially cover the contents of the topics, isn't it? How are the details in question not part of purpose of navigation?PPEMES (talk)15:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Do me a favour and fix the issue. I do not want to look much longer at "Syriac Christianity footer (76 transclusions) >> Patriarchate of Antioch (redirect) >> Patriarchate of Antioch (disambiguation)" Ow, and one solution is to unlink the link to the disambiguation page.The Banner talk15:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your maintainance. I have fixed the redirect. But do you know any other ways that would satisfyWP:NPOV?PPEMES (talk)16:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It start to look that you use NPOV as an excuse to do nothing. I solved the issue, and you reinstated it it. I gave you advice, and you ignore it. What do you want then? An editwar?The Banner talk16:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the redirect if that was the issue. If the issue is policy of the very linking to a disambugation page, that's new for me. If it regards merely administrative categorising of pages linking to disambiguation pages, also this I am not really aware of how that works. Therefore I am not quite sure if this is really a problem that needs to be fixed. But since you insist, would you mind helping explaining by referring to some related policy?PPEMES (talk)16:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Disambiguation,Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages,Help:Disambiguation,Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig,Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links,Templates with disambiguation links,Articles With Multiple Dablinks.The Banner talk17:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Though, is it incorrect to interpretate thatWikipedia:Disambiguation#No_primary_topic applies here?PPEMES (talk)18:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed incorrect as that is about how make a disambiguation page.
- But up to now you have not explained why it is necessary to link to a disambiguation page.The Banner talk18:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure enforcing that Wikipedia rule here makes this template better, simply. I don't think it is optimal nor ultimately helpful. It just relieves entry of this template in some internal Wikipedia administration which I have a hard time finding as an argument for article realm content. Yet I have changed the link toPatriarch of Antioch.PPEMES (talk)18:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)