Template talk:Syriac Christianity footer

message: Maronites (including those in Cyprus) and Melkites are not "Syriacs" according to most observers and scholars who wrote about the Middle Eastern ethnic groups or other minorities, some activists are making a mess of all this with no scientific backing at all, the "Syriacs/miniproject" page proves that the purpose is of a political/nationalist/religious nature, nothing to do with the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Pylambert 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: 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)
thread_title:  There is no dispute anymore. 

message: 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)
replies: text: I indeed object for all reasons already explained above, and in related articles. Its content is outrageously propagandist (it points towards a few Zionist-like anti-Arab Middle Eastern Christian activists, mostly in North America, who are trying to build the concept of a non-Arab Christian minority and to convince the U.S. authorities to help them create a sort of non-Arab Christian Israel in the Middle East, preferably in Lebanon) as there is no serious scientific reference: 
* that uses "Syriacs" as a designation for present-day Neo-Aramaic Christians (Assyrians, or "Assyrian people"), as "Syriacs" is only used in English and in French for the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic churches
* that includes in the category of present-day Neo-Aramaic Christians followers of the Maronite Catholic Church, of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and of the Antiochian Orthodox Church
* that lists  Cypriot Maronite Arabic and Lebanese Arabic among the languages of the present-day Neo-Aramaic Christians
Obviously, Benne coined the term Syriacs himself and wrongfully tries to impose it on wikipedia and on all articles pertaining to Assyrians. This is not acceptable. I always try to put references for statistics (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)

text: Based on Google hits, I don't think he made up the term himself. --Khoikhoi 00:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anyone else who objects to this template? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move to [[Template:Syriac Christianity]] 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Assyrian Evangelical Church

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree, linking to Aramaeans is redundant. But Benne is over-sensitive about this. — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:13 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
If we did have an article on "Aramaean Assyrians", as we have "Chaldean Assyrians" or "Syriac Assyrians" (the latter is a particularly pointless coinage), we could link to it. But as long as we don'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):
church                 	Syriac OrthodoxSyriac Catholic     	Assyrian Church of the East	Chaldean Catholic                                       	Maronite Church
people/self-designation	Syriac Assyrians / Aramaeans       	Nestorians  / Assyrians    	Chaldeans                                               	Maronites
dialect                	Bohtan Neo-Aramaic, Mlahsô,  Turoyo	Assyrian Neo-Aramaic       	Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, Hértevin, Koy Sanjaq Surat, Senaya	
dab (𒁳) 08:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aramaeans

message: 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)
thread_title:  Table divisions 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thanks to you! An honour to come across a Wikipedia user like you. Happy continuous editing! Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Church of East" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title:  Date of foundation for Church of the East