Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should this article be merged with Antiochian Orthodox Church? Aren't these just two different names for the same thing?[edit]

Ah, there's the rub. There are actually two groups who lay claim to 'Syrian Orthodox'. One is part of the Oriental Orthodox Communion, and calls itself the "Syrian Orthodox Church". The other is part of the Eastern Orthodox Communion and calls itself the "Antiochian Orthodox Church"--although they called themselves the "Syrian Orthodox Church" until fairly recently. Dogface 04:38, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mention of Jacobite[edit]

There's no mention of Jacobite in the current article. Is that something different? Because a lot of redirects come from Jacobite Orthodox Church. I've only heard of the church from a friend who said she was Syrian Jacobite.

The article looks quite different to when i last looked back in August last year [1], where's that information gone? T 05:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It went in what I think was a POV edit, now reverted --Henrygb 21:14, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some major reorganisation needed[edit]

It looks like some major reorganisation is needed here.

  • The Syrian Orthodox Church has renamed itself the Syriac Orthodox Church.
  • Antiochene Orthodox Church is usually used to describe the Arabic-speaking church which is in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.
  • 'Jacobite' was initially a partisan label given to the Syriac-speaking Christians who broke away from Constantinople. Syriac Orthodox dislike this label. However, Syriac Orthodox in Kerala tend to use it as the main way of distinguishing their church from others.

I am new here, so I do not quite know the best way to go about changing this. I'll have a try: let me know what you all think.

Gareth Hughes 14:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Thanks very much for your input. The whole area needs some proofreading I assume. But this article itself looks rather O.K. to me, only a bit short compared with its german counterpart at de:Syrisch-Orthodoxe_Kirche_von_Antiochien (OTOH the german one looks like copyvio). To address your three main concerns:

  • I moved the article to "Syriac" in accordance with the offical self naming.
  • It is mentioned in the article, that the Antiochene Orthodox Church is another, "competing", church.
  • "Jacobite" is an often used labelling in older western sources, so it should stay. The article says, the church "is called", so its somewha clear, that this is an external labelling.

If you also have a grasp on the situation in Kerale, can you please have a look at Nasrani#Nasrani_tradition_today. It seems to me, at least one of the churces named there would be a duplicate.

Pjacobi 15:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Double revert[edit]

An additional sentence was added to be the second sentence in this article reading:

It is one of the five churches that comprised what is now the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church before the Great Schism.

The five churches referred to are the patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The additional sentence does not make it explicit (one reason why I don't want it there) that it is talking about the Patriarchate of Antioch in a pre-schismatic pentarchy. If the Syriac Orthodox Church was the sole inheritor of the Antiochene tradition it would be fine to leave the sentence. However, as there are a number of churches with their roots in that tradition, it certainly is POV to suggest that the SOC represents the Antiochene branch of the one perfect church.

I don't want to revert this again. So, please give me some reason why it should be there. Gareth Hughes 21:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oops...well "what is now" shouldn't be there, I had typed something else before that, so that's just poor editing on my part. Anyway, I guess it could say that it claims to be descended from the original Antiochene church, would that be better? Adam Bishop 21:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It also shouldn't imply anything about the Great Schism being a dividing point, because the Syriac Orthodox Church (along with the other Oriental Orthodox Churches) had already split centuries earlier. --Delirium 04:29, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
When talking about splits and schisms it is best to say that there was a split/schism between different bodies, rather than one party split from the rest. Each side will have their own views of this, but this wording is less controversial and more neutral. Members of Oriental Orthodox churches would be likely to label the last post as Byzantine falsehood — the Chalcedonians split from the orthodox line of Cyril of Alexandria, they would suggest. --Gareth Hughes 14:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Assyrian Church of The East[edit]

There is also an unrelated Assyrian Church of the East.

The Assyrian Church of The East is related to the Syriac Orthodox Church since the founders of the Assyrian Church left the Syriac Orthodox Church sometime in the 4th or 5th century and founded the East Syriac Church also known as The Assyrian Church of The East.--Sargon 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Church of the East[edit]

The link to the Assyrian Church of the East wiki has "(Nestorian)" before it, yet that page denies that the Assyrian Church of the East is actually Nestorian. I don't really know enough about this issue to try and fix that, but it needs to be fixed one way or the other. - Matt Montgomery

The Assyrian Church of the East (or Church of the East) was founded in Assyria between the 1st and 3rd centuries AD. Nestorius lived in the late 5th century AD. His followers fled to the Sassanid Empire of which Assyria (known as Assuristan by the Persians) was part. There was some form of synthesis between the two doctrines as they had similarities, although the Assyrian Church and its doctrine was much older. So strictly, the Assyrian Church of the East is doctrinally different to the teachings of Nestorius, although to Europeans right through the Middle Ages up until the early 20th century those Assyrians who were members of the Assyrian Church of the East were labelled Nestorians, including those Assyrians who broke from the Assyrian Church and entered into communion with the Roman Catholic Church in the 17th century and were renamed (and racially and geographically misnamed) Chaldean Catholics by The Vatican. Nestorian just became a lazy and inaccurate generic term used to describe all sorts of Eastern Christians. But after the 14th century AD when the Assyrian Church of the East-Nestorian Church was wiped out in Central Asia, China, Mongolia, everywhere except the Assyrian homeland in northern Iraq, northeast Syria, southeast Turkey and northwest Iran (as well as Kerala in [[India), it was used to describe mainly ethnic Assyrians who belonged to the; Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church and even sometimes Syriac Orthodox Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.31.70 (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chit-chat tone[edit]

  • "..."these terms are misleading, and not appreciated by the some of the church today" Precisely why these terms are misleading would provide information rather than a judgment. "not appreciated" is a euphemistic vulgarism: find a more informative phrase.
  • "The main idea of the Syrian Orthodox Church is love. In other words love conquers all, it doesn't matter how old you are, what color skin you have, what religion you are, what you believe in, etc. Every man and woman should find love and be peaceful." This is fatuous drum-beating.
  • " A wise man once said, "Love is an endless mystery, for it has nothing to explain it." Such greeting-card sentiment tells little about the Syriac Orthodox Church.
  • "It is against some churches out of the Middle East to marry one from a different church." Lacks precision. What is the Syriac Orthodox ordinance on this subject? Quote it.
  • "Some estimate that the church has about 5.500.000 members globally..." Some estimate indeed. This is lazy. Source a figure and mention the source.

Please consider the above in lieu of one of those lazy "clean-up" tags. --Wetman 09:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Oriental Orthodoxy project[edit]

There is now a new proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oriental Orthodoxy for a group which would focus on articles relating to the Oriental Orthodox Church. Any individuals interested in working with such a group should indicate as much there, to allow us to know if there is enough support to actually begin such a project. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A celebrity who is a member of S.O.C.[edit]

Could (maybe, maybe not) be interesting to put into the article. Yes there are extremely few, but one comes to mind: Hollywood actor F. Murray Abraham. -andy 80.129.113.231 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up the article a bit Lijujacobk (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar[edit]

Does this church use the calendar described at East Syrian Rite? Is it Julian or Gregorian or Coptic or something else? -- Beland (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"rabbinic tradition"?[edit]

"Syriac Fathers following the rabbinic tradition"
Why would Fathers be following a rabbinic tradition? Isn't that chronology backwards? Christianity predates rabbinical Judaism.
Varlaam (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vestments[edit]

In the section Vestments the picture that is shown shows priests wearing a Kalimavkion. Syriac Orthodox priests do not wear this clothing and this pictures seems to be Syriac Catholic not Syriac Orthodox.

Does anyone have any information regarding this picture? 3abos (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also it appears that the picture is in Mar Toma. 3abos (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do study about Syriac Orthodox Church in India. Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 04:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Cap used by the priest in the Syriac Orthodox Church, in the Middle East it is used only during Non-liturgical setup as a sign of Secular priesthood , but in Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church , it is used even during liturgical setups. User:Suryani-Malankara (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of the "Ecumenical synods" section?[edit]

The top of the section has the claim that "the Church of Antioch played a significant role in the early history of Christianity. It played a prominent role in the first three Synods..." However the remainder of the section, which describe four of the early major synods, contain absolutely no reference to the role of the Church of Antioch. It seems as though this connection should be explained or the section should be removed, saving only the claim itself with at least a reference to supporting documentation. Jyg (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Syriac Orthodox Church[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Syriac Orthodox Church's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Frazee":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac Orthodox Christians (Middle East)[edit]

I just wanted to note that an user at WP:WikiProject Assyria calls for Syriac Orthodox Christians (Middle East) to be merged into Assyrian people, or deleted. Please join the discussion.--Zoupan 16:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Syriac Orthodox Christians are merely Assyrians from Tur Abdin. Many even self-identify as Assyrian. They're only separated by church. ~ Meganesia 04:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please confine merge discussion to the other article which is thought of for merging. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PPEMES - Hey, What is the Status of This? Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 04:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may proceed and finish the merge. PPEMES (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalinsunnykvj: Thanks for merging! However, since you started it, would you mind finishing the job? Since you didn't track every single hows and whats of sectional merges of text - which also can't be demanded of you - would you mind also correcting your merge and see to it that the merge under construction hate note may be relieved? PPEMES (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this merge is completed now. Thanks! PPEMES (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

  • Lead section too long
  • Indication of founding circumstances disputable
  • More?

Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section was now severely shortened, leaving only its "according to its tradition" statement in the lead paragraph along with the equivalent statement in the infobox. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Different IPs and users have enforced text in this article, as illustrated by this edit, contrary to third part sources. Until further help has enroled for this article, I'm afraid a temporary lock might be needed so that only registred users may contribute for a while. But first, I would like to ask for help for better ways to solve this problem. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can undo their edit once and leave them a message. If this does not work, create a new section on the article talk page and provide justification for your edit, so that consensus may be reached. Notice that the discussion and reaching of consensus may take several days. --Gryllida (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss establishment of patriarchate of Syriac Orthodox Church[edit]

Hi, Chicbyaccident, Thank You for the Contributions at the Article Syriac Orthodox Church. Please do note that the church was not established in 518. References and history shows it during the age of early Christianity. Due to Schism there was a confusion with the dates. Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 03:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalinsunnykvj: Sorry, having a vague notice at Fox News and a tourist website doesn't quite do it, especially not while obviosuly making a WP:OR connotation of this with support from a reference of an encylopedia on the general topic of the pentarchy. However, you have managed to suffocate me. Let's make it an RfC. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch was founded in the 1st century by St. Peter in Antioch in 37 AD. [1][2] SemiticHistory (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SemiticHistory: Of you sources, the first is partial, and the second one's summary even says it is about "the sixth century separation of the Syrian Orthodox Christians from Western Christianity". In short, you are asked to revert your edit and return if you have better sources. On a further note, the history section of the whole Oriental Orthodoxy traces its background to the Chalcedonian Schism of 451. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SemiticHistory:, I reverted your changes because you are not using independent, reliable sources to support the changes. Please note that religious organizations are not given any special deference in determining their origin. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn Chicbyaccident I used exclusively independent, scholarly books as my sources, from the top people in the field such as Sebastian Brock & Robert Murray. These sources are the most reliable. You should read the actual books before deciding based on summaries. Just because a westerner says it separated doesn't mean it established at that date. Separation doesn't equate to establishment. Read the books first. Why are you editor of this page? Who made that decision?
Chicbyaccident Please do note that Origin and Established are having different meaning. They are cited by sources . Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 07:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Syriac Orthodox Church was in the 1st century by St. Peter & Paul the Apostle in Antioch in 37 AD. Autocephaly was gained by First autocephalous Patriarch Severus of Antioch in 518 AD.In Article Its given Tracing its Origin to Saint Peter and Saint Paul in 1st century (Traditional) and maintains WP:NPOV .The claim (the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch), not the See of Antioch in general, which has multiple pretenders)of those multiple pretenders they all have same origin and then claimed Autocephaly in different time periods which are cited by sources. Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 16:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sceptical of the use of "first autocephalous patriarch" as a thing in the infobox. I have not seen this kind of use in the infoboxes of any other Christian denomination. PPEMES (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES: If you had not seen something it doesn't mean it does not Exist!!!! Schism separated the Church and the non primary sources cites the Origin, The use of Template Leaders depends on the Topic. On wikis, an infobox is a table used to collect and present a subset of information about its subject, such as a document and in Wikipedia represents a summary of information about the subject of an article.( NOT IMAGINARY CONTENT OUTSIDE OF SCOPE ). While Editing Religious Articles WP:RNPOV should be maintained.

Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources. " According to Saint Luke, "The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" (New Testament, Acts 11:26) " and this church is branched from Church of Antioch cited by non primary sources. For eg: IF X is the mother of Y, Then S adopted Y, X is still the mother of Y with traits adopted from S. Similarly Established and Founded have different meaning...! Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 16:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind help. PPEMES (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

The current size of the infobox makes it almost larger than the article itself... Not sure that is comme-il-fait here on infoboxes on Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalinsunnykvj: Regarding this edit. Your edits have repeatedly been objected. Yet, you keep on implementing them. I thus deem it required to bring up this article to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I would kindly like to ask you to self-revert your edit until further discussions is settled over the issue. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicbyaccident: Please do see the Inbox Now. Its neutralized a infobox now. Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 17:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalinsunnykvj: It's good that you moved the images out of the overpopulated infobox, but unfortunately your endorsed state of the infobox still doesn't satisfy WP:NPOV The first independent patriarch will have to be listed, as is in the article text. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicbyaccident: Hi, What do you Think about Region Section, that has just diaspora and it doesn't mention where exactlt is this diaspora? Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 17:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's widely around. Better specify in article test. Infobox isn't for listing all possibly data, but just for a quick overview of the basics. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalinsunnykvj: To have a variable "First autocephalous Patriarch" right under "Patriarch" strikes me as an odd solution for the infobox. I don't see why the contents (about the first patriarch) shouldn't be included in the" Origin" variable instead, as it used to be. In fact, it would be misleading to have to moved from "Origin" to "First Patriarch" per WP:NPOV. I would therefore insist on reverting it once again back to "Origin", logically, as would aslo be reflection of the lead section text. (Please note that I am the same user as the above, with new username). PPEMES (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES: Hi, please refer The Template:Infobox Christian denomination "leader_title3 = Custom leader title leader_name3 = name of religious leader" and there is no rule not to include the first independant establisher. And variables Founder-founder Origin - founded_date, founded_place" it is not meant for long texts like "according to"etc which converts infobox to long para,An Infobox may be used to summarize the information of an article on Wikipedia. Please read WP:RNPOV, Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources. Thus for NPOV and clarity from template there is no restriction to use the custom title. You may do a cleanup to the article as it is the current tag for maintainace. Regards, Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 07:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Origin" is not made for long text. But if a small sentence is needed in order to satisfy WP:NPOV, then so be it. To relocate the first Patriarch elsewhere both makes it less WP:NPOV and less clear - more confusing - to readers althogether. In summary: there is no reason to spread that indication out rather than to keep it in the origin variable. I was a bit hesitating when you came around this article. At first, I interpretate we had a little bit of misunderstandings. But with time, I perceive you conceded to more neutrality and have done a descent job to improve this article. Why don't we keep it that way? PPEMES (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES: Please be careful in editing pages related to WP:RNPOV and strictly follow guidelines. And the Template is not meant for holding such texts, which changes the attributes. There is no Offense in Current Style which makes the topic more clear." both makes it less WP:NPOV and less clear - more confusing - to readers althogether" This is the best direct way rather than in Origin, Like the Template Gives Origin Date and Place and thats it. Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 11:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea of excluding that from the "Origin" variable does not reflect what the lead section says. First, there was s discussion about simply indicating the first patriarch as founder of the Syriac Orthodox Church. However, we gave in to your demands that this name should instead simply be indicated as "First Patriach". However, then recently you moved away the first patriarch detail in order to have "Origin" left with only "Traces background to Peter and Paul". That insufficiently mirrors what the lead text and the history section says. Is that deliberate on your part? If so, are we now back to the start of the WP:NPOV issues that I thought we had departed from? PPEMES (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES: We do not add Names in FOUNDED DATE thats my point !!!!!!
To override WP:NPOV in order to satisfy some rules in some documentation someone wrote in some infobox, how convincing is that? PPEMES (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES: OK, So According to You we should write Date in the Name Section or vice versa??? Then What is the use of Infobox Templates and Attributes? If Attribute Mentions DATE, The Edior should use that. Also For WP:NPOV sources are required with citations and Not Irrelevant Texts and unsourced texts... Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 12:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did add straight name and year date for the variables "founder" and "founded date". Wholly in accordance with what the lead section says, and has said for a long time. However, you deleted these entries... PPEMES (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES: Founder and Date is Not Supported by any Sources. Please find a Source saying Syriac Orthodox Church Was Founded in 518 by Severios . Instead Adding First Independant Leader And Date is Purely Satisifies WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV based on sources.
Encyclopedia Britannica added. PPEMES (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand The Difference Between "Organized" and "Founded". Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 13:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's your determining source for how, when and by whom it was founded? PPEMES (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a Statement or Claim is given, Then there should be a clear and reliable source which supports the same. And According to me I deleted the Founder Attribute For WP:NPOV. Why not leave it blank and stop this Dispute? People can understand the origin in lead section."Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, is an autocephalous Oriental Orthodox church established by Severus of Antioch in Antioch in 518 A.D., organised by Jacob Baradaeus (c. 500-578), while tracing its history to Antioch by Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the 1st century, according to its tradition" And based on Oriental Orthodoxy the Founder is Jesus Christ, So for WP:RNPOV, Removed the Same. There is no Offense in the Leader Name. As Severios established the church, Added that to the infobox. I hope its Clear. And Please continue to Improve the Article for post merge. Regards, Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 14:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind that lead section. Neither you, it seems. So why not have the infobox mirror the lead section? Why do you have to disclose the first patriarch by relocating that detail to up in the infobox where this historical origin detail does not belong? This is not the way any of these infoboxes are used. It is confusing. PPEMES (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support There is no offense in the addition of First Patriarch in Infobox and the Origin section is having sources which supports the foundation date. --Suryani-Malankara (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well. No other infobox uses a secondary "leader" variable as "First Patriarch" like that. All other that explains its establishment, explains this as "founder" if by a person. This would also mirror the lead section, which says "established by Severus of Antioch in Antioch in 518 A.D.". As such, this shouldn't be an issue. PPEMES (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES: Fixed Infobox as Independence attribute is restored from 2009 revison. (It was missing since template was moved and not included in documentaton) Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 06:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the infobox has again been pumped failing WP:NPOV with regards to how origin is presented. I have to commend the pushers' persistance, because I am getting quite tired of this. PPEMES (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethno-linguistic issues[edit]

GreenestMen made some contributions here that were deleted by Stalinsunnykvj and MelanieN, claming that the edits of GreenestMen was vandalism. I'd caution against claiming the contributions of this user was vandalism. In fact, I think some parts of the additions were substantial and should be readded. On the other hand, the version enforced have WP:NPOV issues in for example replacing the phrase "escaping the genocide carried out by the late Ottoman empire which targeted ethnic Christians such as Armenians, Assyrians, and Arab Christians" with "escaping the Assyrian genocide". PPEMES (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I did not delete anything. I just semi-protected the article. And my reason for doing so was not vandalism, it was "Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content". I have no opinion on the content of the article, which should be decided by discussion here at the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PPEMES, There is a "War (Rivalary)" going on between Assyrians and Arameans. They have vandalized social medias already and now they started with wiki "changing the Encyclopedia" without proper citations and self procalimed claims. If they have reliable claims with citation and written as NPOV, Then it will be considered by other editors.. Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 04:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://syrianorthodoxchurch.org/
  2. ^ Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church Volker L. Menze

Origins in lead section as well as in infobox by now[edit]

The way origins is presented in the current version of the lead section does not satisfy WP:NPOV: the lead section presents it as if though the church was founded in 1st century, and attempts to disclose how the autocephalous patriarcate was established centurieds later. I must commend the POV pushers' persistance at this point, though, because I am getting quite tired of the issue. PPEMES (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When a schism occurs, each side tends to portray themselves as the original branch and the others as the schismatics. But surely to be NPOV one would have to see both as separate continuations of the original tradition, now each going their own way. In the infobox right now, the source for the claim that the Syriac Orthodox Church branched from the Church of Antioch is the Catholic encyclopedia newadvent.org, which may be reliable for many facts but is surely not neutral on the question of schismatic churches. It is accurate to say there was a church in Antioch from the first century, and that in the sixth century a dispute led to a split. But to be neutral, it should be recognised that both sides claim to be the heirs of the ancient tradition. This issue comes up on other Christianty articles, for example recently at History of the Catholic Church. FrankP (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RNPOV[edit]

Please Read This: In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Certain sects who call themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists—influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work)—still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else."

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Thanks.. Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 07:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed[edit]

Sorry, I seem to be one of very few who chime in to this article. Regrettably, I can't take that role alone. I need help to try to maintain neutrality around here. PPEMES (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The people at WT:WikiProject Christianity might be interested in leding a hand. I'll leave a note there. Huon (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At a closer look, this seems to have been going on for more than a year with basically the same two editors disagreeing with each other. In that case you may want to pursue a more formal kind of dispute resolution, maybe even a full-blown request for comments. Huon (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already asked for help at WT:WikiProject Christianity without success. OK, let's try RfC. PPEMES (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please pose a question in your RFC. I was unclear on why you needed help before. Elizium23 (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. It regards the recurring imposition of deviations from WP:NPOV as described in the current hatnote of this article. PPEMES (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A hatnote is not enough for Legobot which requires a brief and neutral statement, more at WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Main Problem Which PPEMES disputes the Establishment Date for WP:NPOV. In Infobox Its Clearly Stated Independence and Origin, I reffered Catholic Church(the only article which are most similar regarding denomination) WP:GA article, when using words like "Claims" its in WP:RNPOV. Here, the article is said to be of Religious Concern. Inviting Others to Comment About this.. Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 07:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PPEMES keeps Wikipedia:Edit warring and without acheiving WP:CON edits the article without Proper Research and Sources. This User disputes the Establish date and Origin Date and does not Know The Difference between those. This Article was Improved From Last Peer Review. Thanks to the Editors. I would Like to Comment that There is no Confusion amoung Independence and Origin which is Listed on Infobox and satisify WP:RNPOV.Alanthampee01 (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As noted at WP:RFCBRIEF, the statement begins at the {{rfc}} tag and ends at the next timestamp. So whatever it is intended to be, please fix the RfC statement above, so that Legobot picks it up and shows something meaningful at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it alright now with "Religion and philosphy"? The regards a dispute on this article about what to write to describe the article subject's origin. PPEMES (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not alright. Go to the "An editor has requested comments from other editors" box above and follow the link Religion and philosophy. In that page, is the statement "Sorry, I seem to be one of very few who chime in to this article. Regrettably, I can't take that role alone. I need help to try to maintain neutrality around here." meaningful? No, it isn't: this means that somebody (preferably PPEMES) needs to fix that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PPEMES The community's view cannot simultaneously be "A" and "not A". Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more. The Current Revision of the Article is Having Clear Data on Infobox. Church is Originated in the 1st Century and Got Independence in the 5th Century. And You don't have any sources which states otherwise or Please don't Add Or Change the Information based on WP:NOR. And what is the Neutrality you are Trying to Prove? There is no Church in Antioch before 5th Century? The Leads State That "branched from the Church of Antioch."," claiming Apostolic Succession to Saint Peter ","The autocephalous patriarchate was established in Antioch by Severus the Great in the c. 5th century" . I can't find Your Neutrality Issue Here Mate!! Eldhose Talk 09:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The core WP:NPOV issue is that the Church of Antioch, or rather the Patriarchate of Antioch, has several pretenders. Compare for instance Template:Patriarchs of Antioch, as well as infobox and contents of Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch. Please help. PPEMES (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably each of those Patriarchs regard themselves as the proper apostolic heir to position, and their church to be the continuation of the original first-century church. Which is why it does seem correct to state that the Syriac Orthodox Church's origins go back to the first century. FrankP (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. In written text, it is well and sound that "they regard themselves" is clearly reflected. But that is different from saying that several different churches where actually and undisputably founded in 1st century Antioch. Neither should this be claimed in the infobox. Please proceed with WP:NPOV. PPEMES (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly, since the original caller of the RFC (PPEMES) has not followed the advice of Redrose64 to fix the RFC statement into something meaningful, I'm taking it on myself to do this. Therefore I have removed the RFC tag above and reissued it below. I hope this will enable more interested editors to be alerted so that we might have a broader discussion. FrankP (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PPEMES Thanks for letting me know (privately) that you're ok with me having done this. I thought I could help move the issue forward, but I really didn't want to appear to be interfering with your RFC, hence my hesitation. FrankP (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your help is much appreciated! PPEMES (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FrankP:@PPEMES: Hello, Based on the Talk: "Patriarchate of Antioch has several pretenders (ie. a person who claims or aspires to a title or position)." Please do note that in article and in Infobox its Clearly given as "Branched from Church of Antioch" and "Independence: 518 A.D./6th Cent."(If those statements are missing then this is clearly violates WP:RNPOV) And NO CURRENT CHURCHES CAN Claim THAT THEY ARE THE 'TRUE' CHURCH OF ANTIOCH (like WP:PEACOCK) but they have the same Parent and are Sister churches as schism occured, Even the Greek Orthodox Church is originated in First Century but Established in AD 518 due to Schism. This does not mean that they are a new Sect or Religion without any Roots but their Parent Churches(Branched From a Single Root) are Same. So Branched is Clearly used. Also, According to Christianity Jesus Christ founded the Church. If you refer The Article Catholic Church Then you can see the Archived discussions. In Infobox its given (Founder Jesus, according to sacred tradition), (Origin 1st century Holy Land, Roman Empire) The Roman Catholic "Church" was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church, And Please do Note that Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, The Church was later Established after the persecution was stoped, But it doesn't Mean that the Catholic Church never existed before its Establishment, There is a difference between Established and Founded. Here, Origin states something that Adherents Believe in as Specified in WP:RNPOV, Along with Other Sources Which Specifies Independence. Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 02:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I had a look at the articles for the different Patriarchs of Antioch. I suppose the point of the second question I posed (below) is that we should have consistency of treatment. When I checked what they said for founder, the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch says Apostles Peter and Paul, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church says Apostles Peter and Paul, according to Melkite tradition, while the Maronite Church says Maron and John Maron. There are also differences for Origin. A similar issue has been in dispute recently at History of the Catholic Church over whether it should say it was founded by Jesus Christ as a fact or according to Catholic tradition. It seems necessary for us to take an overview because I think the denominations should have consistent treatment. FrankP (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, something akin to that is what I have advocated. PPEMES (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Origin and founders of the church[edit]

  1. How should the dates of the origin/establishment of this church and the identity of its founders be described in an accurate but NPOV way?
  2. Is there consistency about the way this question is handled across Christian denominations (for example, parallel articles for the other Patriarchates of Antioch)? FrankP (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to WP:NPOV [here]. PPEMES (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without Obtaining WP:CON, PPEMES is not maintaining WP:GF, Please do Note that this is a Religious Article and there is clear understanding of the topic's Origin and Independence.J.Stalin S Talk 01:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely not a religious article. This is a factual Wikipedia article on a Christian denomination. As such, it ought convey self-assertions of the Christian denomination in question, not present those self-assertions as facts, as you impose here. That's not satisfying to WP:NPOV. With our without asserted WP:CONSENSUS by means of one or two other users supporting your assertion. PPEMES (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018[edit]

 Not done: Please read the article, which already states the Church traces its founding to St. Peter in the lead and the body text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn, but it wasn't established in 518. That part is unnecessary and shouldn't be there. One can easily make the argument that the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch was established in 518 since there came into existence a new line of patriarchs beginning with Paul the Jew, rather than Severus whom even they recognize up until 518. The Non-Chalcedonians continued to recognize an already existing patriarch while the Chalcedonians stopped recognizing one whom they recognized for six years then began to recognize a new one. How can the Syriac Orthodox have been established in 518 then? It is illogical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SemiticHistory (talk • contribs) 09:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done this page is not protected and may be edited directly. — xaosflux Talk 15:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: So can someone else please monitor this article? I don't have time or energy to keep it in check all the time. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicbyaccident: we have 6,815,851 articles, no one is assigned to monitor any specific article, anyone is welcome to watch and article, and recent changes patrol checks for changes to all pages in general. — xaosflux Talk 20:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar?[edit]

which are they using? Informationskampagne (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lint Error[edit]

Can Someone Fix Missing End Tag Error? Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 06:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Jacobite Orthodox Church" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jacobite Orthodox Church. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article[edit]

Is the theology of this denomination based in Monophysitism? If so, why not mention this basic information in the article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

Google Scholar results for the various names used in the article:

  • "Jacobite Church" 1080 (although this term, I understand, may refer to other churches)
  • "Syriac Orthodox Church" 829
  • "Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch" 90
  • "Assyrian Apostolic Church" 42
  • "Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch" 31

If a name is only used in a tiny minority of English-language sources, it is probably WP:UNDUE in the first sentence of the article. I therefore suggest changing the first sentence to:

"The Syriac Orthodox Church, informally the Jacobite Church, is an Oriental Orthodox church branched from the Church of Antioch." (t · c) buidhe 04:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that the name Assyrian Apostolic on Google Scholar only redirects 1 time to the Syriac Orthodox Church. All the others sources refer with Assyrian Apostolic to the Assyrian Church of the East.Reldex (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False claim[edit]

User:Mugsalot You are using false sources that do not refer to the claims in the text. All youractivity in the article, it's all about just defending a false claim regarding that the Syriac Orthodox Church is "historically known as the Assyrian Apostolic Church". You keep revert changes even though the source does not match with the statement written in the article. Please discuss this issue and back-up the claim. SOC-Sweden (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with @SOC-Sweden: as no citation or valid source to prove this statement or claim. J.Stalin S Talk 02:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recent edits and reverts of user Mugsalot in this article are hard to understand, particularly in regard of summary removal of referenced content. Such behavior is quite unfortunate. Sorabino (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Syrian Orthodox Church" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Syrian Orthodox Church. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 27#Syrian Orthodox Church until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments (informal)[edit]

There is a discussion over at WP:RSN regarding the use of a certain book as a source for the article The Poem of the Man-God. Part of the discussion involves the commendation of the book in question by a Bishop of a branch of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Some editors are questioning his existence, thus bringing into question the credibility of the book itself. It seems there is sufficient evidence to show this Bishop is an authentic Bishop of the Syriac Orthodox Church or one of its branches, but some disagree. This is an informal request for comments, since some of you that participate on this talk page may have additional information pertaining to that part of the discussion. For those interested, instead of reading the entire thread, you can begin reading from near the end where I summarize the three remaining issues of contention and arguments, with a paragraph for each. Arkenstrone (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Date[edit]

The current year on info-box shows 518, However the source given(pg. 58) states that church emerged as an independent community after the council of Chalcedon. In 512 Severus Patriarch was consecrated and in 518 he was deposed for not accepting the council, the Syriac church did not reconsecrate him again on 518. In 519 new Greek Orthodox Patriarch was appointed. So requesting comments on the same. J.Stalin S Talk 16:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syriac_Orthodox_Church&oldid=1213292654"