Template talk:Syriac Christianity footer

Sure there is
Please check out the Final Declaration of the foundation convention of the European Syriac Union, representing the following organisations:
 * 1) Syrianska-Assyriska Riksförbundet i Sverige
 * 2) Renyo Hiro Magazine (Sweden)
 * 3) Union of the Syriac Associations in Switzerland
 * 4) Union of the Assyrian-Syriac Associations in Germany
 * 5) Bethnahrin Information Bureau in the Netherlands
 * 6) Institut Mésopotamie de Bruxelles
 * 7) Centre de Peuple de Mésopotamie
 * 8) Assyrian-Syriac Culture Club of Vienna
 * 9) Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac Union (ACSU)
 * 10) Union of the Free Women of Bethnahrin (HNHB)
 * 11) Union of the Youth of Mesopotamia (HCB)
 * Benne, you're definitely a very bad student if you rely for your thesis on that sort of sources, I was referring to "any scientific source (sociology, political science, history, books or articles published in scientific journals or by scientific presses)", not to activists for one side or the other. You may have some linguistic knowledge about Aramaic languages, but you lack any historical and sociological knowledge about them, and your interventions on wikipedia only bring more confusion. --Pylambert 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're definitely a very arrogant contributor. How can scientists determine someone's identity? They should rely on what the people themselves choose as a self-appellation. Just waving with titles of books written by self-proclaimed scientists doesn't mean your argumentation is scientifically sound.
 * And if you want names of scientists: check out Theodor Nöldeke's Syriac grammar, Hans Hollerweger, John Joseph: Assyria and Syria: Synonyms? -- you'll find a refutation of your claim that Armenian "Asori" means "Assyrians".
 * Linguists are not reliable on this, sociolinguists do. Besides, Assyrians is the official ethnonym used not only in Armenia (official government documents and websites in English use it too), but also in Australia (censuses) and New Zealand (censuses), see Assyrian diaspora with census categories and results. Syriacs, in English, only refers to the Syriac Orthodox and Catholics, idem in French with Syriaques. The discussion over Assyrians and Syrians in the Armenian language in John Joseph's article does not concern present-day Assyrians but very clearly the Antiquity, yet another example of your trying to mislead people with false statements and misinterpreting scientific datas ! And he quotes himself very clearly on the matter of present-day Assyrians: "What I did write in my Preface was that the Nestorians “are known also as Assyrians, a name commonly used in reference to them only since the First World War.”[Italics added.]". Pylambert 06:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Before lecturing other people about their own ethnicity maybe you should

study a little further the subject ... and why not meet some syriacs ! The question of the name of our people is an unresolved question that has been debated for centuries. But all the different "factions" : chaldeans, assyrians, arameans or syriacs allways said that they were one people. and by the way maronites considers themselves syriacs too ! you obviously never met one ...

Nestorian is a misnomer, an insult to a member of the Church of the East
That is a term used by non Church of the East members given to them by the Byzantines. It was an insult then and an Insult now. Aturaye has always been the name of the nation. Some say Asuraye, Athuraye, or Ashuraye. This is before the British "discovered" them.

There is no dispute anymore.
If you read the title it says Syriac Christian. Not Syriacs.
 * Not for long, Benne has already changed it back, so I put back the accuracy banner. --Pylambert 10:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else who objects to this template?
At the moment, only Pylambert appears to be objecting to the template. The only objective of the template is to provide a device for showing the various self-appellations of the people who have for centuries been calling themselves Suryoye/Suryaye, an Aramaic name meaning simply "Syrians". More recently, the name "Syriacs" has been coined to avoid confusion with the citizens of the Arab Republic of Syria. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I indeed object for all reasons already explained above, and in related articles. Its content is outrageously propagandist (it points towards a few Zionist-like anti-Arab Middle Eastern Christian activists, mostly in North America, who are trying to build the concept of a non-Arab Christian minority and to convince the U.S. authorities to help them create a sort of non-Arab Christian Israel in the Middle East, preferably in Lebanon) as there is no serious scientific reference:

Obviously, Benne coined the term Syriacs himself and wrongfully tries to impose it on wikipedia and on all articles pertaining to Assyrians. This is not acceptable. I always try to put references for statistics (see Assyrian diaspora e.g.) and for other contributions, or even a larger bibliography when possible (Assyrians in Iran e.g.). Benne on the contrary seems to be getting information directly from some voices (like Joan of Arc) and neglects to sustain his modifications and creations by any scientific reference. He even misuses existing references, see above ("Sure there is"). --Pylambert 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * that uses "Syriacs" as a designation for present-day Neo-Aramaic Christians (Assyrians, or "Assyrian people"), as "Syriacs" is only used in English and in French for the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic churches
 * that includes in the category of present-day Neo-Aramaic Christians followers of the Maronite Catholic Church, of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and of the Antiochian Orthodox Church
 * that lists Cypriot Maronite Arabic and Lebanese Arabic among the languages of the present-day Neo-Aramaic Christians
 * Based on Google hits, I don't think he made up the term himself. --Khoikhoi 00:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Pylambert, I back you on everything, but I have to disagree with you on this. Benne did not coined the term Syriacs himself. It has always been used by despora christians of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Chaldean 01:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The designation exists indeed, but it applies to only two Churches, with the less numerous followers among the Assyrians, but including millions of Indians (in India) who are surely not ethnically related to present-day Neo-Aramaic Christians. --Pylambert 01:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Move to Template:Syriac Christianity
I still think that Syriacs could be defined as an ethnicity, based on a common language and religious culture, but to avoid deletion, I moved this template to Syriac Christianity, a title that might just as well or perhaps even better define that shared identity. In the end, though the people have been referred to as Syrians for centuries, the name Syriacs is of quite recent origin, and apparently not accepted by all the people concerned. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

TfD debate
This template survived a discussion on TfD. See Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 15. -Splash talk 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonaramaic languages
It doesn't make sense. And if where going to do that then why not add Iraqi arabic and Turkish? Chaldean 23:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You've got a point. In that case German, Swedish, and Dutch should be included as well. However, I think Garshuni deserves to be mentioned, since it is used by Syriacs only. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your right. Chaldean 22:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, the template does just look organized. Maybe we should give it a new look. Chaldean 23:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And also Cypriot Maronite Arabic needs to be included, I think.
 * Sure, go ahead. I was the one who started this template, but I'm not very talented when it comes to graphics ... --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian Evangelical Church
Is it that necessary to list it? I thought it would be good to list just the major ones. All these small Churches are really irrelevant as they are fairly new and have contributed to Syriac Christianity very little historically. Chaldean 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got a point, but I just moved it from the list of self-appellations to the list of churches, where it --self evidently-- more appropriate. In what extent is the Ancient Church of the East relevant, in your opinion? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the Ancient Church of the East is more relevant then these small protestant Assyrian churches because of numbers. Chaldean 13:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Aramaeans
stop linking to Aramaeans, the article on the pre-Christian people. I realize that modern Assyrians are also called Aramaeans. They are still discussed at Assyrian people, which clearly states "also called Aramaeans" from the very beginning. dab (𒁳) 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to put the template on its feet by listing "Churches" as the main division of "Syriac Christianity", and by avoiding repetition of links. This might still be made more useful by some sort of tabular arrangement that makes clear which group and which language is associated to which Church. dab (𒁳) 07:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, linking to Aramaeans is redundant. But Benne is over-sensitive about this. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 09:13 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

If we did have an article on "Aramaean Assyrians", as we have "Chaldean Assyrians" or "Syriac Assyrians" (the latter is a particularly pointless coinage), we could link to it. But as long as we don't have an article, we cannot link to it. If we want to create a "Aramaean Assyrians", we would of course need to show that this is  a valid subgroup along the lines of "Syriac Assyrians". Looking at the evidence available on-wiki, the situation present itself as follows (please expand and correct): dab (𒁳) 08:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Table divisions
The table is not wholly evident. Not sure if Saint Thomas Christians qualify as a separate cetagory outside of the West/East Syrian scope? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"Church of East"
Regarding this edit. Please note that the column in question refers to present communions. "Church of the East" is thus misplaced in that column. It is not analogous to the other communions (Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc.). Assyrian Church of the East are Ancient Church of the East are independent communions. That is why there were listed as "Independent" previously. Correctly so. That is why your edit is problematic. Furthermore, Chaldean Catholic Church also descends from the Church of East. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you! An honour to come across a Wikipedia user like you. Happy continuous editing! Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
Can you explain how the East Syriac Indian denominations arose out of a West Syriac tradition, as it presents now? Srnec (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The template just indicates that Malankara Rite is considered West Syriac in accordance with the lead section and sources of Malankara Rite. However you may suspend that assertion, shuld you wish to. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Date of foundation for Church of the East
I've changed the date of foundation of the Church of the East from 431 to the 4th century. Although the Nestorian Schism helped to consolidate the Church of the East as a separate church, the existence of the Church as a separate organisation predates the Council of Ephesus—something that's described in the history section of the article for the Church. Better dates would be the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon of 410 or the foundation of the Catholicate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in the early 4th century. I've opted for the latter as the most relevant to this template. Tagging since they entered 431. — Nizolan  (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (Also, even if it were dated to the Nestorian Schism, 431 would still be inaccurate as the Church didn't accept Nestorius until some time later. In contrast to the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Church of the East emerged because of the practical independence of Christians in the Persian Empire from Rome, rather than in response to a particular council. — Nizolan  (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC))

"Link to a disambiguation page"
I.e. Patriarchate of Antioch. opposed this, but I don't really know of any better solution. Do you have any? The thing is that WP:NPOV has to be satisfied as well. PPEMES (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You can remove the long story you have added... The Banner  talk 15:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What story do you mean? PPEMES (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The part that had removed and that you reverted back in. The Banner  talk 15:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, why delete information essential to explaining what the divisions are about? PPEMES (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why extending a template into an article when its sole purpose is to be a navigation aid? The Banner  talk 15:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a template, not an article, but it is supposed to superficially cover the contents of the topics, isn't it? How are the details in question not part of purpose of navigation? PPEMES (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do me a favour and fix the issue. I do not want to look much longer at "Syriac Christianity footer (76 transclusions) >> Patriarchate of Antioch (redirect) >> Patriarchate of Antioch (disambiguation)" Ow, and one solution is to unlink the link to the disambiguation page. The Banner  talk 15:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your maintainance. I have fixed the redirect. But do you know any other ways that would satisfy WP:NPOV? PPEMES (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It start to look that you use NPOV as an excuse to do nothing. I solved the issue, and you reinstated it it. I gave you advice, and you ignore it. What do you want then? An editwar? The Banner  talk 16:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed the redirect if that was the issue. If the issue is policy of the very linking to a disambugation page, that's new for me. If it regards merely administrative categorising of pages linking to disambiguation pages, also this I am not really aware of how that works. Therefore I am not quite sure if this is really a problem that needs to be fixed. But since you insist, would you mind helping explaining by referring to some related policy? PPEMES (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation, Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, Help:Disambiguation, Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig, Disambiguation pages with links, Templates with disambiguation links, Articles With Multiple Dablinks. The Banner  talk 17:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Though, is it incorrect to interpretate that Disambiguation applies here? PPEMES (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is indeed incorrect as that is about how make a disambiguation page.
 * But up to now you have not explained why it is necessary to link to a disambiguation page. The Banner  talk 18:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure enforcing that Wikipedia rule here makes this template better, simply. I don't think it is optimal nor ultimately helpful. It just relieves entry of this template in some internal Wikipedia administration which I have a hard time finding as an argument for article realm content. Yet I have changed the link to Patriarch of Antioch. PPEMES (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)