Talk:Syriac Orthodox Christians in the Middle East

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

What is the Ethnicity implying?[edit]

Is the Ethnicity of this page implying that Syriac Orthodox Christians are Assyrians or not Assyrians? ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 02:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

As made clear by scholars, "Assyrians are also referred to as Chaldeans, or Syriacs. The origin of these names is mainly related to the changing fortunes and identities of a people and their diasporas that have gone different ways over three millennia. However, it should be emphasized from the outset that all these names refer to essentially the same indivisible people" [6] This position is also supported by several other sources.

  • John A. Shoup, Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia, p. 30
  • Nicholas Aljeloo, Who Are The Assyrians?
  • UNPO Assyria
  • Steven L. Danver, Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues, p. 517
  • James Minahan, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: A-C, pp. 205-206

With this wealth of information it is clear the Syriac Orthodox are not a separate ethnoreligious group to Assyrians, Chaldeans, Arameans or Syriac Catholics. This article does also, however, provide an abundance of knowledge on the history of the Syriac Orthodox Church and its adherents and thus would be better placed on that article instead of here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugsalot (talk • contribs)

This article is not about Assyrians. The article is about Syriac Orthodox Christians in the Middle East. The history of the Syriac Orthodox Church and its adherents is not in any way better placed on that article instead of here.--Zoupan 03:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly confused. Syriac Orthodox Christians or Syriacs, as proven by the sources provided, are Assyrians. Simply stating your beliefs in a ridiculous and confrontational manner does not constitute a valid reason to not merge this article. Furthermore, the sole source you provided to assert that Syriac Orthodox Christians are a distinct ethno-religious group references to a page that does not exist. If you fail to provide better sources to suggest Syriacs are a distinct ethno-religious group then I will be forced to merge this article. Mugsalot (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the page should be kept. Perhaps we should add another section to the Template:Assyrians called "Subgroups" and put Syriac Orthodox Christians and Chaldean Christians there? Syriacs and Chaldeans are ethnic groups, but they are Assyrian ethnic groups- kind of like how Cherokee and Creek Indians would all be native Americans, Chaldeans and Syriacs are all Assyrians. And, considering their own distinct identities, a page dedicated to them should still be kept.Cirflow (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page should certainly be kept, but as a redirect not an article. I have yet to see a source provided that states Syriacs and Chaldeans are separate ethnic groups. I do not think that comparison is accurate, sources show that the terms Syriac, Chaldean and Aramean are merely different ways of referring to the same ethnic group as referenced above. Holding those who identify as Syriac or Chaldean or Aramean as part of a separate ethnic group would be misinterpreting all scholarly work I have seen as of now. Mugsalot (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is called vandalism. The Orthodox Syriacs and Chaldeans are separate ethno-religious groups, end of discussion.--Zoupan 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have completely failed to engage with this merge proposal. Not only do I have sources to prove otherwise, your sole source does not actually exist. I am going to revert your edits for having failed to provide an adequate response to any of the issues I have raised. Mugsalot (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. You proposed it (on false grounds), but it was never accepted. Read the comments throughout the talk page. Despite the actual concensus, to not have it merged, you went on and blanked the article three times which is utterly disruptive.--Zoupan 22:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider 5 reliable sources false. Neither do I consider the fact that the sole basis of this article does not exist false either. Your complete and utter lack of ability to engage with other editors is the issue here. Mugsalot (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Separate subjects should be kept separate. You clearly do not have consensus to perform the merge, especially now that I have piled on against. Just because they belong to the same overarching group, does not mean that all the information should be located under the same article. I'm not saying that Syriac Orthodox Christians are not Assyrians, just that they have an individual identity from other Assyrians. Thus this article should remain as it is. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 23:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not understand how saying that they are Assyrians means that the content should be merged with the page about the church itself. I personally believe that the people under the church are different from the church itself. Example Christian and Christian Church. Two different topics, two different articles. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 23:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot, your "5 reliable sources" are bare refs and on top of that include unreputable tertiary sources. Not the least of presentation. Those are evidently not superior to the countless reliable sources (academics, experts) directly handling the subject, fully cited in the article.--Zoupan 23:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoupan, you have been rude and hostile to this proposal from the very beginning and I would suggest a very serious change to the way you approach discussions with other editors in future. Only one single source is used in the article to support the statement that Syriac Orthodox Christians are an ethno-religious group, Donabed and Mako. Not only does Donabed and Mako not support that statement in their work, but you refer to page 223, a page that does not exist.[1] Excluding the debatable source, I will gladly explain the sources I have provided to demonstrate that Syriacs or Syriac Orthodox Christians are not separate to Assyrians and thus do not warrant their own article:
  • Shoup states that "Assyrian people...are also known as... Syriacs" and "the community differs concerning its name";[2] this demonstrates that Syriacs are part of the Assyrian ethno-religious group and the only difference between Assyrians and Syriacs is the name by which they identify
  • UNPO Assyria states that "Assyrians are also referred to as...Syriacs" and that the terms "Assyrian" and "Syriac" "refer to essentially the same indivisible people";[3] this makes it clear that Syriacs are not considered separately from Assyrians
  • Danver states that Assyrians are "also referred to as...Syriacs"[4]; this further proves that Syriacs or Syriac Orthodox Christians are not separate to Assyrians
  • Minahan considers the term Syriac to be another way of referring to Assyrians and places the "Syrian Orthodox or Jacobite community" under the People and Culture section of the chapter on Assyrian people;[5] this demonstrates that Syriacs are considered Assyrians and that Syriac Orthodox people are not considered a separate ethno-religious group
The Voidwalker, by proving that scholars consider Syriac Orthodox Christians to be Assyrians and are not held to be a separate ethno-religious group, there is no reason for there to be a separate article for them. I proposed this article be merged with the Syriac Orthodox Church article as this article does hold, however, detailed information on the history of the church and would be better suited there instead. In regards to the Christian and Christian church articles, there are no articles for Catholics or Protestants or Orthodox Christians, so I am uncertain why Syriac Orthodox Christians would be the exception, especially now that I have demonstrated that they are not considered separately to Assyrians. Mugsalot (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned from a spout of non editing, and i must say that i agree most with voidwalker in this debate. That is basically what i am trying to say! They are all Assyrians, but considering the Syriacs are a distinct Assyrian group with their own religion, dialect, culture, and region- they ought to have their own article. However, It must be stressed that they are an Assyrian group- and the "identity" section should be able to elaborate on the issue. It is not appropriate to repress the fact that they are Assyrians and POV push a pro syriac agenda like Zoupan is doing, but similarly merging them would not make sense. And if we were to merge them it should be merged into Assyrians if anything- not an article on a church, it simply would not make sense. That would be like merging the Chaldean Christians article into Chaldean Catholic Church. Additionally, the fact that there is an article for Chaldeans proves how this page ought to stay. If Chaldeans have their own article, then Syriacs ought to as well. And if this page gets merged, then that one needs to be merged too. Cirflow (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot, you only made it clearer that you have no support whatsoever for the merging of this article; the term "Assyrians" is used for Syriac Christians, and that we already know. In no way does terminology warrant the removal of this article, which has its own subject, Syriac Orthodox Christians, and not Assyrians/Syriac Christians. Does this really need to be explained over and over again? These Syriac Christian groups have developed independently. The Ottoman recognition of different Syriac millets is undisputable.--Zoupan 20:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are obscenely poor at communicating and I can only hope for your sake that is due to poor English. The sources I have provided demonstrate that Syriac Orthodox Christians are not their own subject and are simply Assyrians, an actual ethno-religious group. Moreover you have failed to respond to my point on your lack of evidence to suggest Syriac Orthodox Christians are their own ethno-religious group to begin with. Mugsalot (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mugsalot: Then we have completely different views on concreteness. You said merge, I said no. Reliable sources, which were in the article when you proposed the merge, support my "obscenely poor communication", that is, that this is an independent subject. I took and take your disregard for this as bad faith, culminating in redirection-vandalism. Since you have a hard time going through the reliable sources and what they say, despite being cited in the article, here are some bits:

  • Romeny (2012): the Syriac Orthodox ... became a full-fledged ethnic community [...] their identity was not just religiously motivated [...] Syriac Orthodox ... special social and juridicial status [...] the seventh century as the time when the Syriac Orthodox developed from a religious association to a community that gradually acquired the sense of being an ethnic community [...] They developed from a religious association to an ethnic community in the period before 1300 [...] there are no indications of the continuous existence of an early Mesopotamian community that could be seen as the forerunner of the Syriac Orthodox community.
  • Hämmerli & Mayer (2016): To be Suryoye (here: Syriac Orthodox) also meant to be different from other Christians and included an unquestioned sense of collective identity and consciousness [...] Quite clearly, a distinct identity is a central element
  • Donabed & Mako (2009): The Syrian Orthodox Christians ... ethnic community [...] The current trend among Syrian Orthodox Christians appears divided along the lines of Aramean and Assyrian

So... Syriac Orthodox Christians, notwithstanding either name/identity of "Assyrians" and "Arameans", are their own subject.--Zoupan 22:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoupan: As I have stated, simply stating no does not constitute an adequate response. Furthermore, the responsibility to provide evidence to support your argument lies with you, not me; I do not have to scour through your work to provide your argument for you. Also, may I suggest following WP:AGF in future. If you had been prepared to appropriately engage yourself in this proposal from the beginning, we could have been saved a great deal of hassle.
Ultimately, however, the roughly equal disagreement between scholars as to the status of Syriac Orthodox Christians does pose a challenge. I would suggest that the article is merged with the Syriac Orthodox Church article as the history and population sections of this article concern the church whereas the identity section should be placed on the Assyrian people article in which it can be noted that, although scholars disagree, it is largely considered that Syriac Orthodox Christians are merely Assyrians. Mugsalot (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you have no comment? The evidence was already in the article. Fully cited. No need to scour. The article should in no way get chopped up. The subject/scope/topic is the Syriac Orthodox (ethnic) community in the Near East. The identity-section deals with the name/identity of Syriac Orthodox Christians, and not Syriac Christians overall. To call/treat them as "merely Assyrians" is a serious fallacy.--Zoupan 00:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
  5. ^ [5]

Syriac Orthodox Christians are Syriac Orthodox Christians[edit]

I fail to see how forcing ethnic terms, Assyrians or Arameans, to this community lends any improvement to the article's scope. The scope is Syriac Orthodox Christians in the Middle East. The "Identity"-section clarifies matters regarding this issue.--Zoupan 03:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly are the people in this community? What is their ethnicity? If they're Syrian Arabs, then we have Arab Christians and Syrian people articles, which covers them. If it's about their church, then the Syriac Orthodox Church has them covered. If this article is about Western Assyrians, we already have the Assyrian people article. You should either rename this article or remove it, because it really doesn't make sense and it has no necessity for its existence. Or else, it's safe to leave the description as "Western Assyrians" or "Suryoye", because it's fact that the from Tur Abdin are referred to THAT way, and that some do claim the Aramean identity. Meganesia 12:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the introduction and identity section. They, the Orthodox Suryoye, are an ethno-religious community. They may be considered "Assyrian", if this term denotes Syriacs overall. However, from an ethnographical perspective, this community is an ethnic group in its own right, with fundamental markers such as language, culture, history, and identity. Do you really think that it should be either deleted or renamed to "Western Assyrians" or something? That's just terrible. There is no need whatsoever to distort, diffuse or merge.--Zoupan 02:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Just don't call them "Syrians". Because that term is specifically used for Syrian people. Not to mention, this will create a confusion for the users in here who don't have knowledge of these ethnic groups. And, above all, Suryoye people originate from Tur Abdin (in Turkey) anyway, NOT Syria. Meganesia 10:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support calling them "Western Assyrians", and I understand that this is a controversial topic- but I do feel that including them within the Assyrian ethnic group is sensible, or at least stating that they are a subgroup. Chaldeans often argue over these same topics and consider themselves different, while others think they are Assyrian. Similarly, some Syriacs do not consider themselves as Assyrians, while others do. Considering that Syriacs are included as Assyrians in statistics such as "Assyrians in Turkey" and there is no article for "Syriac Genocide", and their similarities, I feel the version that was established prior to your revert expressed that well. I stated that they are SOMETIMES considered an Assyrian group, and in the identity section the issue is elaborated on. Cirflow (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The revision you are pushing is altering cited sentences and using a false census results. Do I really need to point out that this article is about Syriac Orthodox Christians and not general Assyrians?--Zoupan 03:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the sentences I added are backed by sources, and it is worse to remove sources than to restructure cited sentences- which you did.Cirflow (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flags[edit]

Please do not add any Assyrian or Aramean flag to the infobox. There is no official flag of this community.--Zoupan 03:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I found it it was called the "Syriac Aramean flag", so I assumed it was acceptable to use. However, I will replace it with another image if it is not. Flags aren't really acceptable for ethnic group pictures anyway unless it's for a national group like Americans. Cirflow (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the infobox. I don't see a good candidate for the infobox, thus, I think we should leave it blank for the time being.--Zoupan 03:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request[edit]

The intro should be changed to:

The Syriac Orthodox Christians, known simply as Syriacs (Suryoye), are an ethnically Assyrian ethno-religious[1] community adhering to the West Syrian Rite Syriac Orthodox Church in the Middle East, numbering between 150,000 and 200,000 people according to estimations.
  • John A. Shoup, Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia (2011), p. 30 [7]
  • UNPO Assyria [8]
  • Steven L. Danver, Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues (2015), p. 517 [9]
  • James Minahan, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: A-C (2002), pp. 205-206 [10]

I have provided 4 sources per WP:PSTS that support the statement that Syriac Orthodox Christians are ethnically Assyrian. I am using the Yazidis Wikipedia article intro as a model. The following sentence should be removed as it unsourced and would contradict the sourced changes I propose:

The Syriac Orthodox community is regarded a subgroup of Syriac Christians, and thus may also be regarded that of the Assyrian people, although the latter identification is a matter of debate. Mugsalot (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Donabed & Mako 2009; Jongerden & Verheij 2012, p. 223; Romeny 2012; Romeny 2005

No changes can be made to the fully-protected article unless they are supported by consensus by other editors. Please discuss the proposed change and reactivate if you get agreement. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoupan, Cirflow, Meganesia, would you consider my proposal an adequate compromise? Mugsalot (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that my revision prior to Zoupans revert and subsequent page protection was in line with consensus. By the page being blocked though, the way it looks to me is that Zoupan got over on all of us by screwing us out of consensus so his forced version is the one which is shown to people reading it- with all of its biases, inaccuracies, poorly written paragraphs, etc. I indicated that the Syriacs are controversially considered an Assyrian group, which is true, and added various fixes to grammar, spelling, new sources, pictures etc and acknowledged every editors concerns and addressed them. I know that meganesia supports me, as does voidwalker, and even though Mugsalot and me arent on the same page with regards to the page existing independently, most of our views seem to be in line with each other. Although I personally agree with your version of the page Mugsalot, the truth is that Zoupan will not agree because he has already made sure to keep his version of the page and effectively snuffed out any form of disagreement until sept 19 through the manipulation of a Wikipedia administrator, and in my opinion(although this is not proven in any way) will continue to do so until he is blocked from editing, and then he will come back after his ban and continue to edit war with a different account, which an admin actually even suspects that he has done. Cirflow (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you agree with my proposed version. Upon further thought, I think the article should be kept independently. However, I think that, given the reliability and number of the sources I have provided (note that I removed the single controversial tertiary source), it is important to highlight that Syriac Orthodox Christians are ethnically Assyrian whilst acknowledging that Syriac Orthodox Christians are an ethno-religious group. Mugsalot (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Mugsalot. However, I think that along with all of this, that my prior version of the page be the one that the new efforts to fix the problems be based upon. I added new sources, integrated the information zoupan added into my version, added pictures, and fixed grammatical and structural errors.Cirflow (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree to name them an "Assyrian group". We should abide by neutrality in the lede. If we enter a discussion about what the term Assyrian really means, it would only show that that term is ambiguous and problematic. Leave as is — the first section clearly describes terminology and identity.--Zoupan 23:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC) UNPO Assyria is unreliable, written by the Assyrian Universal Alliance. The other ones are still unreputable tertiary. They cannot be used to override scholarly references.--Zoupan 23:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoupan, it is obvious at this point that nobody agrees with you. So far every editor except you agree that Syriacs are an Assyrian group, and the majority of the evidence supports it as well. This page deserves to exist, and you should be happy that we are all allowing it to grow and have better quality due to our collective efforts to improve the page. Refusing to listen will either force the page to be poor quality, get it taken down, or cause yourself top get into more edit wars which will get you blocked from editing.Cirflow (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that line of argument repeated time and time again, that "Assyrian" is a blanket term, but I haven't seen a single source provided to support that argument and I would certainly be interested in reading about it. The article on UNPO Assyria does not state that the article was written by the Assyrian Universal Alliance (AUA), simply that the AUA represents Assyrians at the UNPO. Moreover, the use of tertiary sources are permitted per WP:PSTS and I see no reason why they are disreputable. The sources I have provided do not override or conflict with the secondary sources you have already provided, it is still stated that Syriac Orthodox Christians are an ethno-religious group. Mugsalot (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Refrain from the mish-mash of disreputable tertiary sources. I urge Cirflow to stop his edit-warring.--Zoupan 19:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoupan, you are obviously not aware of the fact that the article "Assyrian people" on WP is called that way per common name. The article is about the ethnic group where the majority are adherents of the Chaldean Catholic, Syriac Orthodox and Nestorian churches. It has been named "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" earlier. That discussion should be kept their. But this community is a part of the ethnic group that is described here. I prefer the suggested lead. Shmayo (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Several times a "Syriac people" fork has been created, and this article is not much different. The article about the ethnic group, the church and especially the one regarding Syriac Christianity are enough. What is the point of a separate article for the part of the Syriac Orthodox Christians from the Middle East? We shall not forget that the majority of Syriac Orthodox Christians live in India. The information given in the article is very much similar to the one of the ethnic group, Assyrian/Syriac people. In my opinion, this is just another "Syriac people" fork that should be redirected. Shmayo (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is even clearer when the article implies that "Suryoye" would mean "Syriac Orthodox Christians". There are Syriac Catholics, Chaldean Catholics and absolutely Protestans (in the diaspora even atheists, perhaps not relevant but just a note) from Tur Abdin identifing themselves as "Suryoye". Just another fork, whom have all been redirected. Shmayo (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the discussions above, it seems people either have forgotten the earlier discussions or was not a part of them. The page Assyrian people was named Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people once, but per WP:COMMON NAME it was renamed Assyrian people again. Therefore, all Syriac people-forks that have been created since then have been redirected. This one is a strange way of getting around the consensus, as I mentioned in my first post. Shmayo (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have not gotten any response here, I'm being bold and redirecting. Shmayo (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith would have been either contacting the involved editors or suggesting the merger at the appropriate forum. This article is about the Middle Eastern ethnographic (or ethnic) group with Syriac Orthodox adherence and identity, as stated countless times before. The identity section perfectly describes the matter.--Zoupan 17:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. But all my above questions are still to be answered. You really did not answer any of them. How does this article differ from the one about the ethnic group (Assyrian/Syriac people), the church (Syriac Orthodox Church) and the identity (Names of Syriac Christians)?. It is full of flaws too, e.g. read above about "Suryoye". Shmayo (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not a fork when we have two articles describing an ethnic group called "Syriacs"? Shmayo (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard names, look at content. The group underwent ethnogenesis, being aware of their ownness in the Middle Ages. See "Assyrian people" as a blanket term for Middle Eastern Syriac Christians (as it is represented on WP), rather than a synonym for this group. Please carefully read the previous sections and take a look at the cited sources.--Zoupan 18:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a blanket term for Christians, many are agnostic today. A part of the Assyrian people belong to the Syriac Orthodox Church. You are still not answering my questions above. And why are those Aramean organizations listed? They may have Syriac Orthodox leaders, but take a look at their statutes, they include people from all church under their Aramean name, same goes for Suroyo TV and Suryoyo Sat. These do not act like Syriac Orthodox organization, but either ethnic Assyrian, Syriac and Aramean ones. Shmayo (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Donabed and Mako are being misquoted. Shmayo (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The Hidden Pearl" is not RS. See earlier discussions here.Shmayo (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mugsalot: @Cirflow: ping. Shmayo (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

This article is merely used for POV-pushing. It is a fork, just as the "Syriac people" pages created in 2009/2010. It consists of segments from Assyrian people, Syriac Orthodox Church and, where most of the content belongs, Terms for Syriac Christians. Furthermore, as I also stated above, a big portions of the adherents of the Syriac Orthodox Church are Nasranis and not covered in this article. A complete rewrite would be an alternative too. Adding Assyrian/Syriac organizations, that are not "Syriac Orthodox" in their identity, is irrelevant to this article, but gives you a sense of how it is constructed. Assyrian, Syriac and Aramean identities exist among the church's member from the Middle East, but not a unified "Syriac Orthodox" one. Historically, just as Nestorians, they have identified themselves as "Syrians" or "Sur(y)oye/Suraye". And the labeling of individuals with different identites is just ridiculous. Shmayo (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoupan, why do you keep removing material regarding the Assyrian identity under the identity-section? Either you are lacking knowledge in the subject, or you are clearly favoring one side. And what is the importance of how individuals (politicians etc) identify? And how do you even find that verifiable? If you are aiming on making this article a good one, shouldn't identity be kept under identity? And that in a good and summarized way, as there is an article covering the whole subject. Shmayo (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This article is about the Middle Eastern ethnographic (or ethnic) group with Syriac Orthodox adherence and identity, as stated countless times before. Shmayo seems to be following the Assyrian nationalist view that all Syriac groups are Assyrians (POV). The identity and history sections clearly describe the matter. I seriously oppose merging articles on any individual group of Syriac Christians to "Assyrian people". Syriac Orthodox Christians (the Suryoye), notwithstanding the name/identity conflict, are their own subject. Shmayo, can you give me one reason in line with Wikipedia guidelines why this article should not exist? To be honest, I see this as ridiculous behaviour. --Zoupan 21:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are basically creating a WP:FORK, and the content is obviously not following WP:NPOV. I asked you a couple of simple questions about the edits you keep reverting, they are clearly favoring one side. And again, why should Suroyo TV and Suryoyo Sat be listed? Give me one reason for removing "Othuroye" while keeping "Oromoye"? There isn't any valid explanation for that. I have been adding some information to this article, but you keep POV pushing and making it look more like a fork.
Well, the Assyrian people-article is about all Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people, and is named "Assyrian people" per WP:COMMONNAME. If that is your issue, then it should be solved there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmayo (talk • contribs)
The article is clearly not a fork, it is an independent subject. Still don't see how you could suggest it in the first place. Those Aramean organizations and Syriac TV stations include matters related to the community, why shouldn't they be added? I have never removed the term Othuroye, I simply reverted your revision which was basically content removal.--Zoupan 00:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Suroyo TV or Suryoyo Sat are "Syriac Orthodox" in their identity. Suryoyo Sat being the one affiliated with Aramean organizations, and recently had a dispute with the church, while Suroyo TV is affiliated with the Dawronoye movement. Now that way of forming the article is what drives it towards a WP:CFORK. While on it, why not list ever single Syriac/Assyrian organization then?
Obviously then you do understand that the version you are reverting to is not NPOV, with that identity section. As for the history section, you're adding a bunch of quotes that are irrelevant, even though it is "sourced content". And as mentioned on ANI, that list with similar (and more) quotes existed here, but was deleted in January for being redundant. Furthermore, you're misquoting Donabed and Mako. Shmayo (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this is not about Church rite or liturgy, the Syriac Christians overall ("Assyrians", as per your POV), or terminology. This article is about an ethno-religious group.--Zoupan 22:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Syriac" typically refers to members of the churches of Syriac Christianity. Some also endorse it as a synonym for Assyrians. All this and beyond can be dealt with in my proposal above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge,This article is about an ethno-religious group but the content are more fit for Syriac Orthodox Church. Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 12:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalinsunnykvj: It take it we have yet another implicit support by Srnec for this merge. You may proceed with the merge at your will. Please just make sure not to loose any information in the merge (although duplicated bits of informations obviously should be merged). PPEMES (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 May 2018[edit]

Syriac Orthodox Christians in the Middle East → Syriac Orthodox Church in the Middle East – Institutional focus frame. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was moved already several days ago, so I'm removing the discussion template. Dekimasuよ! 08:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

I reverted back to a version before Zoupans POV-version of this article. See earlier comments from 2017. I still think that a merge should be discussed here. Shmayo (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of Article[edit]

I have largely avoided discussion of the non-Chalcedonian adherents of the former Church of Antioch for some time because of the animosity and hostility that emanates from many of the editors who follow this topic on Wikipedia purely to ensure their nationality of choice is promoted above all others. The change in name of this article, in my opinion, now makes the article more redundant than before. This article contains content on the history of the identity of the whole of the aforementioned Christian group, not the Syriac Orthodox Church in the Middle East or its adherents. I believe the article should be named to reflect its content, that is the history of the identity of this entire group. There are already too many articles for the same content:

  • Assyrian nationalism
  • Assyrian continuity
  • Assyrian people
  • Terms for Syriac Christians
  • Syriac Orthodox Church in the Middle East

I don't care if you think you are Assyrian, Syriac, Chaldean, Aramean, or a combination of all of them, you are all making a mess, and have been making a mess for years. It can all be adequately simplified to two articles, one for Assyrian people, and one for the history of the identities of the non-Chalcedonians of the former Church of Antioch, by which I include the Church of the East and its successors. The article for the history of their identities can be made from the merger of this article with Terms for Syriac Christians, Assyrian continuity, and Assyrian nationalism. My sandbox is free for people to use to add to whichever article. Mugsalot (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some merging may be motivated, yes, but not all. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syriac_Orthodox_Christians_in_the_Middle_East&oldid=1205542928"