Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church

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

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

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

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

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)

Rewording

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)

AD/BC

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)

Require clarification.

@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 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)

Next step

@Warriorglance, I have added 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)

Revertion

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 [2] 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 [3] [4] 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 this for Chaldean Patriarch Louis Sako (stating that the Syriacs, Chaldeans and Assyrians are all Arameans in heritage) and 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.

• [5] - 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.
• [6] - 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 [7] 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.

• [8] - 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 - [9]
• The Assyrian flag that was used by the Paris Peace conference was originally created by Syriac Orthodox Christians from Tur Abdin [10]. This flag was also used by Syriac Orthodox Assyrians in Massachussets [11], 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)

I removed part of your changes. The citation doesn't support 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 [12], 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. [13] 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 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 [14] (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: [15]. 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 [16].

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)

@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:

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:

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 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)

So, no changes other than a removal of the phrase "took a stance" and the addition of these two sources. 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. Atto (2011) and 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)

Peer review

Syriac Orthodox Church

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a while since the last review. Me and @Warriorglance would like to send it to GAN and could use the feedback. Any specific advice would be very useful!

Thanks, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 16:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Numbers

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:- New Indian Express 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)

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, [17] from the Internet Archive. 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)

[18][19]

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)

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 this mentions the sources of the journal. Warriorglance(talk to me) 07:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Name & Identity

@Warriorglance & @CF-501 Falcon: Thank you for your comment on my suggestion. CF-501 Falcon, I agree with you on the patriarchs. I have adjusted accordingly, see 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." [20]

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)