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

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)

The Assyrian Church of The East
 There is also an unrelated Assyrian Church of the East.

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

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

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

Chit-chat tone

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

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

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

A celebrity who is a member of S.O.C.
Could (maybe, maybe not) be interesting to put into the article. Yes there are extremely few, but one comes to mind: Hollywood actor F. Murray Abraham. -andy 80.129.113.231 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

"rabbinic tradition"?
"Syriac Fathers following the rabbinic tradition"

Why would Fathers be following a rabbinic tradition? Isn't that chronology backwards? Christianity predates rabbinical Judaism.

Varlaam (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Does anyone have any information regarding this picture? 3abos (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * also it appears that the picture is in Mar Toma. 3abos (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do study about Syriac Orthodox Church in India.  Stalin Sunny  Talk2Me 04:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the Cap used by the priest in the Syriac Orthodox Church, in the Middle East it is used only during Non-liturgical setup as a sign of Secular priesthood, but in Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church , it is used even during liturgical setups. User:Suryani-Malankara (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Reference named "Frazee": From Ignatius Philip I Arkus:  From Assyrian Church of the East: Charles A. Frazee, Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire 1453–1923, Cambridge University Press, 2006 ISBN 0-521-02700-4 From Ignatius Michael III Jarweh:  From Ignatius Andrew Akijan:  From Ignatius Antony I Samheri:  From Nerses IV the Gracious:  From Shimun VIII Yohannan Sulaqa:  From Ignatius Peter VII Jarweh:

From Maronite Church: [https://books.google.com/books?id=iepJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT883&dq=maronite+church&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJx_P-sqLKAhVBcz4KHT4BAQk4ChDoAQg-MAk#v=onepage&q=maronite%20church&f=false Frazee, Charles. "Maronites", Encyclopedia of Monasticism, (William C. Johnston, ed.), Routledge, 2013, ISBN 9781136787164]

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

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

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

Please confine merge discussion to the other article which is thought of for merging. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - Hey, What is the Status of This?  Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 04:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You may proceed and finish the merge. PPEMES (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Issues
Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lead section too long
 * Indication of founding circumstances disputable
 * More?

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

Different IPs and users have enforced text in this article, as illustrated by this edit, contrary to third part sources. Until further help has enroled for this article, I'm afraid a temporary lock might be needed so that only registred users may contribute for a while. But first, I would like to ask for help for better ways to solve this problem. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You can undo their edit once and leave them a message. If this does not work, create a new section on the article talk page and provide justification for your edit, so that consensus may be reached. Notice that the discussion and reaching of consensus may take several days. --Gryllida (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Discuss establishment of patriarchate of Syriac Orthodox Church
Hi, Chicbyaccident, Thank You for the Contributions at the Article Syriac Orthodox Church. Please do note that the church was not established in 518. References and history shows it during the age of early Christianity. Due to Schism there was a confusion with the dates.  Stalin Sunny  Talk2Me 03:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, having a vague notice at Fox News and a tourist website doesn't quite do it, especially not while obviosuly making a WP:OR connotation of this with support from a reference of an encylopedia on the general topic of the pentarchy. However, you have managed to suffocate me. Let's make it an RfC. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

 * The Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch was founded in the 1st century by St. Peter in Antioch in 37 AD. SemiticHistory (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Of you sources, the first is partial, and the second one's summary even says it is about "the sixth century separation of the Syrian Orthodox Christians from Western Christianity". In short, you are asked to revert your edit and return if you have better sources. On a further note, the history section of the whole Oriental Orthodoxy traces its background to the Chalcedonian Schism of 451. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I reverted your changes because you are not using independent, reliable sources to support the changes. Please note that religious organizations are not given any special deference in determining their origin. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Eggishorn Chicbyaccident I used exclusively independent, scholarly books as my sources, from the top people in the field such as Sebastian Brock & Robert Murray. These sources are the most reliable. You should read the actual books before deciding based on summaries. Just because a westerner says it separated doesn't mean it established at that date. Separation doesn't equate to establishment. Read the books first. Why are you editor of this page? Who made that decision? Chicbyaccident Please do note that Origin and Established are having different meaning. They are cited by sources . Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 07:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Origin of the Syriac Orthodox Church was in the 1st century by St. Peter & Paul the Apostle in Antioch in 37 AD. Autocephaly was gained by First autocephalous Patriarch Severus of Antioch in 518 AD.In Article Its given Tracing its Origin to Saint Peter and Saint Paul in 1st century (Traditional) and maintains WP:NPOV .The claim (the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch), not the See of Antioch in general, which has multiple pretenders)of those multiple pretenders they all have same origin and then claimed Autocephaly in different time periods which are cited by sources. Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 16:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm sceptical of the use of "first autocephalous patriarch" as a thing in the infobox. I have not seen this kind of use in the infoboxes of any other Christian denomination. PPEMES (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you had not seen something it doesn't mean it does not Exist!!!! Schism separated the Church and the non primary sources cites the Origin, The use of Template Leaders depends on the Topic. On wikis, an infobox is a table used to collect and present a subset of information about its subject, such as a document and in Wikipedia represents a summary of information about the subject of an article.( NOT IMAGINARY CONTENT OUTSIDE OF SCOPE ). While Editing Religious Articles WP:RNPOV should be maintained.

Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources. " According to Saint Luke, "The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" (New Testament, ) " and this church is branched from Church of Antioch cited by non primary sources. For eg: IF X is the mother of Y, Then S adopted Y, X is still the mother of Y with traits adopted from S. Similarly Established and Founded have different meaning...!  Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 16:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Infobox
The current size of the infobox makes it almost larger than the article itself... Not sure that is comme-il-fait here on infoboxes on Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit. Your edits have repeatedly been objected. Yet, you keep on implementing them. I thus deem it required to bring up this article to Requests for page protection. I would kindly like to ask you to self-revert your edit until further discussions is settled over the issue. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do see the Inbox Now. Its neutralized a infobox now. Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 17:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's good that you moved the images out of the overpopulated infobox, but unfortunately your endorsed state of the infobox still doesn't satisfy WP:NPOV The first independent patriarch will have to be listed, as is in the article text. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, What do you Think about Region Section, that has just diaspora and it doesn't mention where exactlt is this diaspora? Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 17:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's widely around. Better specify in article test. Infobox isn't for listing all possibly data, but just for a quick overview of the basics. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To have a variable "First autocephalous Patriarch" right under "Patriarch" strikes me as an odd solution for the infobox. I don't see why the contents (about the first patriarch) shouldn't be included in the" Origin" variable instead, as it used to be. In fact, it would be misleading to have to moved from "Origin" to "First Patriarch" per WP:NPOV. I would therefore insist on reverting it once again back to "Origin", logically, as would aslo be reflection of the lead section text. (Please note that I am the same user as the above, with new username). PPEMES (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, please refer The Template:Infobox Christian denomination "leader_title3 = Custom leader title leader_name3 = name of religious leader" and there is no rule not to include the first independant establisher. And variables Founder-founder Origin - founded_date, founded_place" it is not meant for long texts like "according to"etc which converts infobox to long para,An Infobox may be used to summarize the information of an article on Wikipedia. Please read WP:RNPOV, Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources. Thus for NPOV and clarity from template there is no restriction to use the custom title. You may do a cleanup to the article as it is the current tag for maintainace. Regards, Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 07:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Origin" is not made for long text. But if a small sentence is needed in order to satisfy WP:NPOV, then so be it. To relocate the first Patriarch elsewhere both makes it less WP:NPOV and less clear - more confusing - to readers althogether. In summary: there is no reason to spread that indication out rather than to keep it in the origin variable. I was a bit hesitating when you came around this article. At first, I interpretate we had a little bit of misunderstandings. But with time, I perceive you conceded to more neutrality and have done a descent job to improve this article. Why don't we keep it that way? PPEMES (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be careful in editing pages related to WP:RNPOV and strictly follow guidelines. And the Template is not meant for holding such texts, which changes the attributes. There is no Offense in Current Style which makes the topic more clear." both makes it less WP:NPOV and less clear - more confusing - to readers althogether" This is the best direct way rather than in Origin, Like the Template Gives Origin Date and Place and thats it.  Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 11:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your idea of excluding that from the "Origin" variable does not reflect what the lead section says. First, there was s discussion about simply indicating the first patriarch as founder of the Syriac Orthodox Church. However, we gave in to your demands that this name should instead simply be indicated as "First Patriach". However, then recently you moved away the first patriarch detail in order to have "Origin" left with only "Traces background to Peter and Paul". That insufficiently mirrors what the lead text and the history section says. Is that deliberate on your part? If so, are we now back to the start of the WP:NPOV issues that I thought we had departed from? PPEMES (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not add Names in FOUNDED DATE thats my point !!!!!!
 * To override WP:NPOV in order to satisfy some rules in some documentation someone wrote in some infobox, how convincing is that? PPEMES (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, So According to You we should write Date in the Name Section or vice versa??? Then What is the use of Infobox Templates and Attributes? If Attribute Mentions DATE, The Edior should use that. Also For WP:NPOV sources are required with citations and Not Irrelevant Texts and unsourced texts... Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 12:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did add straight name and year date for the variables "founder" and "founded date". Wholly in accordance with what the lead section says, and has said for a long time. However, you deleted these entries... PPEMES (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Founder and Date is Not Supported by any Sources. Please find a Source saying Syriac Orthodox Church Was Founded in 518 by Severios . Instead Adding First Independant Leader And Date is Purely Satisifies WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV based on sources.
 * Encyclopedia Britannica added. PPEMES (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please understand The Difference Between "Organized" and "Founded". Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 13:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

What's your determining source for how, when and by whom it was founded? PPEMES (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If a Statement or Claim is given, Then there should be a clear and reliable source which supports the same. And According to me I deleted the Founder Attribute For WP:NPOV. Why not leave it blank and stop this Dispute? People can understand the origin in lead section."Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, is an autocephalous Oriental Orthodox church established by Severus of Antioch in Antioch in 518 A.D., organised by Jacob Baradaeus (c. 500-578), while tracing its history to Antioch by Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the 1st century, according to its tradition" And based on Oriental Orthodoxy the Founder is Jesus Christ, So for WP:RNPOV, Removed the Same. There is no Offense in the Leader Name. As Severios established the church, Added that to the infobox. I hope its Clear. And Please continue to Improve the Article for post merge. Regards, Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 14:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't mind that lead section. Neither you, it seems. So why not have the infobox mirror the lead section? Why do you have to disclose the first patriarch by relocating that detail to up in the infobox where this historical origin detail does not belong? This is not the way any of these infoboxes are used. It is confusing. PPEMES (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Support There is no offense in the addition of First Patriarch in Infobox and the Origin section is having sources which supports the foundation date. --Suryani-Malankara (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well. No other infobox uses a secondary "leader" variable as "First Patriarch" like that. All other that explains its establishment, explains this as "founder" if by a person. This would also mirror the lead section, which says "established by Severus of Antioch in Antioch in 518 A.D.". As such, this shouldn't be an issue. PPEMES (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed Infobox as Independence attribute is restored from 2009 revison. (It was missing since template was moved and not included in documentaton) Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 06:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Ethno-linguistic issues
made some contributions here that were deleted by and, claming that the edits of  was vandalism. I'd caution against claiming the contributions of this user was vandalism. In fact, I think some parts of the additions were substantial and should be readded. On the other hand, the version enforced have WP:NPOV issues in for example replacing the phrase "escaping the genocide carried out by the late Ottoman empire which targeted ethnic Christians such as Armenians, Assyrians, and Arab Christians" with "escaping the Assyrian genocide". PPEMES (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I did not delete anything. I just semi-protected the article. And my reason for doing so was not vandalism, it was "Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content". I have no opinion on the content of the article, which should be decided by discussion here at the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, There is a "War (Rivalary)" going on between Assyrians and Arameans. They have vandalized social medias already and now they started with wiki "changing the Encyclopedia" without proper citations and self procalimed claims. If they have reliable claims with citation and written as NPOV, Then it will be considered by other editors..  Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 04:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Thanks.. Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 07:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Help needed
Sorry, I seem to be one of very few who chime in to this article. Regrettably, I can't take that role alone. I need help to try to maintain neutrality around here. PPEMES (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The people at WT:WikiProject Christianity might be interested in leding a hand. I'll leave a note there. Huon (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * At a closer look, this seems to have been going on for more than a year with basically the same two editors disagreeing with each other. In that case you may want to pursue a more formal kind of dispute resolution, maybe even a full-blown request for comments. Huon (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I already asked for help at WT:WikiProject Christianity without success. OK, let's try RfC. PPEMES (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please pose a question in your RFC. I was unclear on why you needed help before. Elizium23 (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. It regards the recurring imposition of deviations from WP:NPOV as described in the current hatnote of this article. PPEMES (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A hatnote is not enough for Legobot which requires a brief and neutral statement, more at WP:RFCST. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Main Problem Which PPEMES disputes the Establishment Date for WP:NPOV. In Infobox Its Clearly Stated Independence and Origin, I reffered Catholic Church(the only article which are most similar regarding denomination) WP:GA article, when using words like "Claims" its in WP:RNPOV. Here, the article is said to be of Religious Concern. Inviting Others to Comment About this..  Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 07:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * PPEMES keeps Edit warring and without acheiving WP:CON edits the article without Proper Research and Sources. This User disputes the Establish date and Origin Date and does not Know The Difference between those. This Article was Improved From Last Peer Review. Thanks to the Editors. I would Like to Comment that There is no Confusion amoung Independence and Origin which is Listed on Infobox and satisify WP:RNPOV.Alanthampee01 (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As noted at WP:RFCBRIEF, the statement begins at the tag and ends at the next timestamp. So whatever it is intended to be, please fix the RfC statement above, so that Legobot picks it up and shows something meaningful at Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it alright now with "Religion and philosphy"? The regards a dispute on this article about what to write to describe the article subject's origin. PPEMES (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not alright. Go to the "An editor has requested comments from other editors" box above and follow the link Religion and philosophy. In that page, is the statement "Sorry, I seem to be one of very few who chime in to this article. Regrettably, I can't take that role alone. I need help to try to maintain neutrality around here." meaningful? No, it isn't: this means that somebody (preferably ) needs to fix that. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * PPEMES The community's view cannot simultaneously be "A" and "not A". Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more. The Current Revision of the Article is Having Clear Data on Infobox. Church is Originated in the 1st Century and Got Independence in the 5th Century. And You don't have any sources which states otherwise or Please don't Add Or Change the Information based on WP:NOR. And what is the Neutrality you are Trying to Prove? There is no Church in Antioch before 5th Century? The Leads State That "branched from the Church of Antioch."," claiming Apostolic Succession to Saint Peter ","The autocephalous patriarchate was established in Antioch by Severus the Great in the c. 5th century" . I can't find Your Neutrality Issue Here Mate!! EldhoseTalk 09:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The core WP:NPOV issue is that the Church of Antioch, or rather the Patriarchate of Antioch, has several pretenders. Compare for instance Template:Patriarchs of Antioch, as well as infobox and contents of Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch. Please help. PPEMES (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably each of those Patriarchs regard themselves as the proper apostolic heir to position, and their church to be the continuation of the original first-century church. Which is why it does seem correct to state that the Syriac Orthodox Church's origins go back to the first century. FrankP (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right. In written text, it is well and sound that "they regard themselves" is clearly reflected. But that is different from saying that several different churches where actually and undisputably founded in 1st century Antioch. Neither should this be claimed in the infobox. Please proceed with WP:NPOV. PPEMES (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly, since the original caller of the RFC has not followed the advice of  to fix the RFC statement into something meaningful, I'm taking it on myself to do this. Therefore I have removed the RFC tag above and reissued it below. I hope this will enable more interested editors to be alerted so that we might have a broader discussion. FrankP (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know (privately) that you're ok with me having done this. I thought I could help move the issue forward, but I really didn't want to appear to be interfering with your RFC, hence my hesitation. FrankP (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your help is much appreciated! PPEMES (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Based on the Talk: "Patriarchate of Antioch has several pretenders (ie. a person who claims or aspires to a title or position)." Please do note that in article and in Infobox its Clearly given as "Branched from	Church of Antioch" and "Independence: 518 A.D./6th Cent."(If those statements are missing then this is clearly violates WP:RNPOV) And NO CURRENT CHURCHES CAN Claim THAT THEY ARE THE 'TRUE' CHURCH OF ANTIOCH (like WP:PEACOCK) but they have the same Parent and are Sister churches as schism occured, Even the Greek Orthodox Church is originated in First Century but Established in AD 518 due to Schism. This does not mean that they are a new Sect or Religion without any Roots but their Parent Churches(Branched From a Single Root) are Same. So Branched is Clearly used. Also, According to Christianity Jesus Christ founded the Church. If you refer The Article Catholic Church Then you can see the Archived discussions. In Infobox its given (Founder Jesus, according to sacred tradition), (Origin	1st century Holy Land, Roman Empire) The Roman Catholic "Church" was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church, And Please do Note that Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, The Church was later Established after the persecution was stoped, But it doesn't Mean that the Catholic Church never existed before its Establishment, There is a difference between Established and Founded. Here, Origin states something that Adherents Believe in as Specified in WP:RNPOV, Along with Other Sources Which Specifies Independence.  Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 02:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. I had a look at the articles for the different Patriarchs of Antioch. I suppose the point of the second question I posed (below) is that we should have consistency of treatment. When I checked what they said for founder, the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch says Apostles Peter and Paul, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church says Apostles Peter and Paul, according to Melkite tradition, while the Maronite Church says Maron and John Maron. There are also differences for Origin. A similar issue has been in dispute recently at History of the Catholic Church over whether it should say it was founded by Jesus Christ as a fact or according to Catholic tradition. It seems necessary for us to take an overview because I think the denominations should have consistent treatment. FrankP (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, something akin to that is what I have advocated. PPEMES (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Origin and founders of the church

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

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

 * Without Obtaining WP:CON, PPEMES is not maintaining WP:GF, Please do Note that this is a Religious Article and there is clear understanding of the topic's Origin and Independence.J.Stalin S Talk 01:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

 * This is precisely not a religious article. This is a factual Wikipedia article on a Christian denomination. As such, it ought convey self-assertions of the Christian denomination in question, not present those self-assertions as facts, as you impose here. That's not satisfying to WP:NPOV. With our without asserted WP:CONSENSUS by means of one or two other users supporting your assertion. PPEMES (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please read the article, which already states the Church traces its founding to St. Peter in the lead and the body text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

 * ❌ this page is not protected and may be edited directly. — xaosflux  Talk 15:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

So can someone else please monitor this article? I don't have time or energy to keep it in check all the time. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * we have articles, no one is assigned to monitor any specific article, anyone is welcome to watch and article, and recent changes patrol checks for changes to all pages in general. —  xaosflux  Talk 20:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Lint Error
Can Someone Fix Missing End Tag Error? Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 06:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Coptic Orthodox pope, Syriac Orthodox patriarch, and Armenian Apostolic catholicos.jpg

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

Names
Google Scholar results for the various names used in the article:
 * "Jacobite Church" 1080 (although this term, I understand, may refer to other churches)
 * "Syriac Orthodox Church" 829
 * "Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch" 90
 * "Assyrian Apostolic Church" 42
 * "Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch" 31

If a name is only used in a tiny minority of English-language sources, it is probably WP:UNDUE in the first sentence of the article. I therefore suggest changing the first sentence to:
 * "The Syriac Orthodox Church, informally the Jacobite Church, is an Oriental Orthodox church branched from the Church of Antioch." (t · c)  buidhe  04:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Notice that the name Assyrian Apostolic on Google Scholar only redirects 1 time to the Syriac Orthodox Church. All the others sources refer with Assyrian Apostolic to the Assyrian Church of the East.Reldex (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

False claim
User:Mugsalot You are using false sources that do not refer to the claims in the text. All youractivity in the article, it's all about just defending a false claim regarding that the Syriac Orthodox Church is "historically known as the Assyrian Apostolic Church". You keep revert changes even though the source does not match with the statement written in the article. Please discuss this issue and back-up the claim. SOC-Sweden (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I Agree with as no citation or valid source to prove this statement or claim. J.Stalin S Talk 02:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Recent edits and reverts of user in this article are hard to understand, particularly in regard of summary removal of referenced content. Such behavior is quite unfortunate. Sorabino (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

icon
why is there an image of an icon from St Catherine's Monastery? That is Greek Orthodox, not Syriac. 142.163.195.114 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

romanized name of Church
What is the point of the romanized name of the Church after each language? It just clutters up the lede. 142.163.195.114 (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed the same.J.Stalin S Talk 06:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church


text:
Ribonucleotide

In biochemistry, a ribonucleotide is a nucleotide containing ribose as its pentose component. It is considered a molecular precursor of nucleic acids. Nucleotides are the basic building blocks of DNA and RNA. Ribonucleotides themselves are basic monomeric building blocks for RNA. Deoxyribonucleotides, formed by reducing ribonucleotides with the enzyme ribonucleotide reductase (RNR), are essential building blocks for DNA. There are several differences between DNA deoxyribonucleotides and RNA ribonucleotides. Successive nucleotides are linked together via phosphodiester bonds.

Ribonucleotides are also utilized in other cellular functions. These special monomers are utilized in both cell regulation and cell signaling as seen in adenosine-monophosphate (AMP). Furthermore, ribonucleotides can be converted to adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the energy currency in organisms. Ribonucleotides can be converted to cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cyclic AMP) to regulate hormones in organisms as well. In living organisms, the most common bases for ribonucleotides are adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), or uracil (U). The nitrogenous bases are classified into two parent compounds, purine and pyrimidine.

General structure

The general structure of a ribonucleotide consists of a phosphate group, a ribose sugar group, and a nucleobase, in which the nucleobase can either be adenine, guanine, cytosine, or uracil. Without the phosphate group, the composition of the nucleobase and sugar is known as a nucleoside. The interchangeable nitrogenous nucleobases are derived from two parent compounds, purine and pyrimidine. Nucleotides are heterocyclic compounds, that is, they contain at least two different chemical elements as members of its rings.

Both RNA and DNA contain two major purine bases, adenine (A) and guanine (G), and two major pyrimidines. In both DNA and RNA, one of the pyrimidines is cytosine (C). However, DNA and RNA differ in the second major pyrimidine. DNA contains thymine (T) while RNA contains uracil (U). There are some rare cases where thymine does occur in RNA and uracil in DNA.

Here are the 4 major ribonucleotides (ribonucleoside 5'-monophosphate) which are the structural units of RNAs.

DNA deoxyribonucleotides versus RNA ribonucleotides
In ribonucleotides, the sugar component is ribose while in deoxyribonucleotides, the sugar component is deoxyribose. Instead of a hydroxyl group at the second carbon in the ribose ring, it is replaced by a hydrogen atom.

Both types of pentoses in DNA and RNA are in their β-furanose (closed five-membered ring) form and they define the identity of a nucleic acid. DNA is defined by containing 2'-deoxy-ribose nucleic acid while RNA is defined by containing ribose nucleic acid.

In some occasions, DNA and RNA may contain some minor bases. Methylated forms of the major bases are most common in DNA. In viral DNA, some bases may be hydroxymethylated or glucosylated. In RNA, minor or modified bases occur more frequently. Some examples include hypoxanthine, dihydrouracil, methylated forms of uracil, cytosine, and guanine, as well as modified nucleoside pseudouridine. Nucleotides with phosphate groups in positions other than on the 5' carbon have also been observed. Examples include ribonucleoside 2',3'-cyclic monophosphates which are isolatable intermediates, and ribonucleoside 3'-monophosphates which are end products of the hydrolysis of RNA by certain ribonucleases. Other variations include adenosine 3',5'-cyclic monophosphate (cAMP) and guanosine 3',5'-cyclic monophosphate (cGMP).

Linking successive nucleotides
Ribonucleotides are linked together to form RNA strands via phosphodiester bonds. The 5'-phosphate group of one nucleotide is linked to the 3'-hydroxyl group of the next nucleotide, creating a backbone of alternating phosphate and pentose residues. There is no phosphodiester bond at each end of the polynucleotide. Phosphodiester bonds are formed between ribonucleotides by the enzyme RNA polymerase. The RNA chain is synthesized from the 5' end to the 3' end as the 3'-hydroxyl group of the last ribonucleotide in the chain acts as a nucleophile and launches a hydrophilic attack on the 5'-triphosphate of the incoming ribonucleotide, releasing pyrophosphate as a by- product. Due to the physical properties of the nucleotides, the backbone of RNA is very hydrophilic and polar. At neutral pH, nucleic acids are highly charged as each phosphate group carries a negative charge.

Both DNA and RNA are built from nucleoside phosphates, also known as mononucleotide monomers, which are thermodynamically less likely to combine than amino acids. Phosphodiester bonds, when hydrolyzed, release a considerable amount of free energy. Therefore, nucleic acids tend to spontaneously hydrolyze into mononucleotides. The precursors for RNA are GTP, CTP, UTP and ATP, which is a major source of energy in group-transfer reactions.

Precursors of deoxyribonucleotides
Scientists believe that RNA was developed before DNA.

The reduction of ribonucleotides to deoxyribonucleotides is catalyzed by ribonucleotide reductase. Ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) is an essential enzyme for all living organisms since it is responsible for the last step in the synthesis of the four deoxyribonucleotides (dNTPs) necessary for DNA replication and repair. The reaction also requires two other proteins: thioredoxin and thioredoxin reductase. Ribonucleoside diphosphate (NDP) is reduced by thioredoxin to a deoxyribonucleoside diphosphate (dNTP).

The general reaction is: Ribonucleoside diphosphate + NADPH + H+ -> Deoxyribonucleoside diphosphate + NADP+ + H2O

To illustrate this equation, dATP and dGTP are synthesized from ADP and GDP, respectively. They are first reduced by RNR and then phosphorylated by nucleoside diphosphate kinases to dATP and dGTP. Ribonucleotide reductase is controlled by allosteric interactions. Once dATP binds to ribonucleotide reductase, the overall catalytic activity of the enzyme decreases, as it signifies an abundance of deoxyribonucleotides. This feedback inhibition is reversed once ATP binds.

Ribonucleotide discrimination
During DNA synthesis, DNA polymerases must select against ribonucleotides, present at much higher levels compared with deoxyribonucleotides. It is crucial that there is selectivity as DNA replication has to be accurate to maintain the organism's genome. It has been shown that the active sites of Y-family DNA polymerases are responsible for maintaining a high selectivity against ribonucleotides. Most DNA polymerases are also equipped to exclude ribonucleotides from their active site through a bulky side chain residue that can sterically block the 2'-hydroxyl group of the ribose ring. However, many nuclear replicative and repair DNA polymerases incorporate ribonucleotides into DNA, suggesting that the exclusion mechanism is not perfect.

Ribonucleotide synthesis
Ribonucleotides can be synthesized in organisms from smaller molecules through the de novo pathway or recycled through the salvage pathway. In the case of the de novo pathway, both purines and pyrimidines are synthesized from components derived from precursors of amino acids, ribose-5-phosphates,, and NH3.

De novo biosynthesis of purine nucleotides is fairly complex, consisting of several enzymatic reactions. Utilizing the five-ring sugar structure as a base, the purine ring is built a few atoms at a time in an eleven-step process that leads to the formation of inosinate (IMP). Essentially, IMP is converted into the purine nucleotides required for nucleic acid synthesis.

The pathway begins with the conversion of Ribose-5-Phosphate(R5P) to phosphoribosyl pyrophosphate (PRPP) by enzyme ribose-phosphate diphosphokinase (PRPS1). PRPP is then converted to 5-phosphoribosylamine (5-PRA) as glutamine donates an amino group to the C-1 of PRPP. In a condensation reaction, enzyme GAR synthetase, along with glycine and ATP, activates the glycine carboxylase group of 5-PRA to form Glycinamide ribonucleotide (GAR). Co-enzyme N10-formyl-THF, along with enzyme GAR transformylase, then donates a one-carbon unit to the amino group onto the glycine of GAR, followed by glutamine addition by enzyme FGAR amidotransferase, leading to the formation of formylglycinamidine ribonucleotide (FGAM). Dehydration of FGAM by enzyme FGAM cyclase results in the closure of the imidazole ring, as 5-aminoimidazole ribonucleotide (AIR). A carboxyl group is attached to AIR by N5-CAIR synthetase to form N5-Carboxyaminoimidazole ribonucleotide (N5-CAIR), which is then converted to Carboxyamino-imidazole ribonucleotide (CAIR) with enzyme N5-CAIR mutase. Enzyme SAICAR synthetase, along with amino group from aspartate forms an amide bond to create N-succinyl-5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide ribonucleotide (SAICAR). Continuing down the pathway, the removal of the carbon skeleton of aspartate by SAICAR lyase results in 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide ribonucleotide (AICAR). Enzyme AICAR transformylase assists in the final carbon transfer from N10-formyltetrahydrofolate, forming N-formylaminoimidazole-4-carboxamide ribonucleotide (FAICAR). Lastly, closure of the second ring structure is carried out by IMP synthase to form IMP, where IMP fate would lead to the formation of a purine nucleotide.

Synthesis of pyrimidine nucleotides is a much simpler process. The formation of the pyrimidine ring begins with the conversion of Aspartate to N-Carbamoylaspartate by undergoing a condensation reaction with carbamoyl phosphate. Dihydroorotase and dihydroorotase dehydrogenase then converts N-Carbamoylaspartate to orotate. Orotate is covalently linked with phosphoribosyl pyrophosphate (PRPP) by orotate phosphoribysol-transferase yielding orotidine monophosphate (OMP). OMP follows with the decarboxylation by orotidylate decarboxylase to form the Uridylate (UMP) ribonucleotide structure. UMP can then be converted to Uridine-5'-trisphosphate (UTP) by two kinases reaction. Formation of Cytidine-5'-trisphosphate (CTP) from UTP can be achieved by cytidylate synthetase by an acyl phosphate intermediate.

Prebiotic synthesis of ribonucleotides
In order to understand how life arose, knowledge is required of the chemical pathways that permit formation of the key building blocks of life under plausible prebiotic conditions. According to the RNA world hypothesis free-floating ribonucleotides were present in the primitive soup. These were the fundamental molecules that combined in series to form RNA. Molecules as complex as RNA must have arisen from small molecules whose reactivity was governed by physico-chemical processes. RNA is composed of purine and pyrimidine nucleotides, both of which are necessary for reliable information transfer, and thus Darwinian natural selection and evolution. The synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides was demonstrated under plausible prebiotic conditions. The starting materials for the synthesis (cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and inorganic phosphate) were considered to be plausible prebiotic feedstock molecules. Nam et al. demonstrated the direct condensation of nucleobases with ribose to give ribonucleosides in aqueous microdroplets, a key step leading to RNA formation. Also, a plausible prebiotic process for synthesizing pyrimidine and purine ribonucleotides using wet-dry cycles was presented by Becker et al.

History

Prior to James Watson and Francis Crick's landmark paper that detailed the structure of DNA from Rosalind Franklin's X-ray crystallography image, there were several historical scientists that also contributed to its discovery. Friedrich Miescher, a Swiss physician, who, in 1869, was first to isolate and identify nucleic substance from the nuclei of white blood cells he later called "nuclein", paving the way for the discovery of DNA. Following Mieschers work, was the German biochemist, Albrecht Kossel, who, in 1878, isolated the non-protein components of "nuclein", and discovered the five nucleobases present in nucleic acids: adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine and uracil. Although some fundamental facts were known about nucleic acids due to these early discoveries, its structure and function remained a mystery.

It wasn't until the discovery of nucleotides in 1919 by Phoebus Levene, a Russian-Lithuanian biochemist that re-opened the gates of the DNA discovery. Levene first identified the carbohydrate component present in yeast RNA was in fact ribose. However, it was not until his discovery that the carbohydrate component in thymus nucleic acid was also a sugar but lacked one oxygen atom, termed deoxyribose, that his discovery was widely appreciated by the scientific community. Eventually, Levene was able to identify the correct order of which the components of RNA and DNA are put together, a phosphate-sugar-base unit, in which he later called a nucleotide. Although the order of nucleotide components were well understood by Levene, the structure of nucleotide arrangement in space and its genetic code still remained a mystery during the early years of his career.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ribonucleotide


text:
Talk:Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch

[Untitled]
''Should this article be merged with Syrian 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 04:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Women as theological figures
I have created the above page: contributions welcome (and pass on to other relevant pages please).

Jackiespeel 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * What does this have to do with Antiochian Orthodox Church? Please leave advertisements off Talk pages.  — Preost  talk contribs 23:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Latin rite

 * The Roman Catholic Church also claimed the patriarchate and appointed titular Latin rite patriarchs for many centuries, until the office was left perpetually vacant as of 1964.

Why was it left vacant? To avoid confrontation? Where were the Latin-rite followers redirected to? --84.20.17.84 11:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Greek Orthodox?
Is it really appropriate to continue to refer to institutions of the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church of Antioch as "Greek Orthodox", given the growing realization of this church as a substantially Arabic church rather than a Greek church? I've seen a number of other articles that make reference to Church of Antioch institutions and refer to them as "Greek Orthodox". Deusveritasest (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The "Arab Orthodox" terminology/polemics is specific to Israel and Jordan = the areas under the nominal jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, where autochthonous “Levantine Greco-Rûm” Christian priests and community leaders (natives of Jerusalem, Haifa, Lydda, Nazareth, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Northern Israel, and Northern Jordan) have been fighting a sort of “cold culture war” against the “European Greek” high-clergy.  This cultural-political phenomenon is specific to the Southern Middle East (Israel, the West Bank and Jordan) and thus doesn’t concern the “sister Church” in the North = the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch (Syria, Lebanon and Southern Turkey).
 * Members of all Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic Churches of Southern Turkey and the MENA area still call themselves Rûm which literally means "Eastern Roman" or “Asian Greek” in Turkish, Persian and Arabic.
 * The term Rûm is used in preference to “Ionani" or Yavani which means “European Greek” or "Ionian" in Classical Arabic and Hebrew. --B.Andersohn (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Greek Orthodox is the term the patriarchate uses for itself in English publications (e.g., on its official website: http://www.antiochpat.org/ ).

 * As for Rûm (in Arabic and Turkish), it literally means "Roman," not "Eastern Roman" or "Asian Greek," etc. EmausPriester (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 * NO: you're wrong. "Rûm" clearly means "Eastern Roman" i.e. "Greeks" (and Macedonians and Greek-speaking Roman settlers and Hellenized Jewish converts to Christianity... etc. = "extended Greeks") living in the Eastern part of what was formerly known as the Roman Empire = "Asian Greeks" or "Byzantines".

 * In Arabic and Arabic-influenced Medieval Turkish and Persian, "Roman" is "Rumânn" or (the more literary) "Latiniyyûn". That's a fact. --B.Andersohn (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Apart from all that, isn't this Church most widely known in English as the Antiochian Orthodox Church? Why was it redirected from that?Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And why do the various linguistic versions say different things? Does the Church have different names in different languages? Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

numbers
I think there are more than 1 million followers of the Greek Orthodox church of Antioch, especially in the Middle East.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are, definitely, but we'd need sources. Selim Hakim (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Abraham Dimitri Rihbany
Is Abraham Dimitri Rihbany really WP:DUE for a whole paragraph here? A convert away from the church who never really influenced it in any way and was not important for its history, he is given more space that most patriarchs of the church combined. Selim Hakim (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://ia700204.us.archive.org/12/items/encyclopaediabib01cheyuoft/encyclopaediabib01cheyuoft.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110222210734/http://balamand.edu.lb/english/index.asp to http://www.balamand.edu.lb/english/index.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226040814/http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Church_of_Antioch to http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Church_of_Antioch

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510101852/http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7126 to http://goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7126
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828123345/http://alepporthodox.org/ to http://www.alepporthodox.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130221132618/http://hama-orthodox.com/ to http://www.hama-orthodox.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Help needed with Syriac Orthodox Church
Please help: Talk:Syriac_Orthodox_Church. PPEMES (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The artickle name is wrong and should be moved
Rum Orthodox Church of Mersin in Turkey belong to Rum Orthodox Church of Antioch.

Look at their tag in the link.

You know all muslims (bosnians persians indians) do not pray pray with their mother language.

All muslims pray with arabic language.

Vice verse Rum ortadhoxs churchs pray with Rumeika (Romeika) language.

Rumeika language that comes from Rum word not comes from Greek word.

Ortadoxs Church of Anioch do not pray Arabic. Even so their mother language Arabic.

They pray with rum-eika language.

So that "Arab ortadhoxs" use title for their churches "Rum Ortadhox Church" in Turkey and in Suriye.

Also they use Rum Ortodhoxs in Turkish and Arabic language.

Greek and Yunan words are olsa exsist in their Arabic and Turkic language.

Rumeika and Greek languge aren't the same.

The Bible's first translation language is Rum-eika language.

Not Greek language.

Please let's move it.

My vote is that the article of Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch move it to Rum Ortodhox Churc of Antioch.

Sencerly--25px 3210 (T) 19:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Claim Not Made
Removed stated claim that is not made by the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch. This church is an autocephalous patriarchate in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, which contains numerous autocephalous patriarchates, all espousing the same Orthodox Christian faith. It is that faith that is claimed to be the ancient church of the apostles, not the separately administered patriarchates that comprise its worldly structure. The faith itself is simultaneously both in this world and in the Kingdom of Heaven and not separated from Christ Jesus nor split into parts. The claim stated in the article was not referenced, but the correction can be found throughout Eastern Orthodox theology if it ever needs to be located. Since it is no longer in the article, that would be the job of the editor that wanted to mention it. 50.39.190.204 (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes
You've made a few unexplained changes and added several pieces of unreferenced content. It would be appreciated if you could explain those changes and provide relevant sourcing (or explain where material can be found in present sourcing). If not, I'll restore the version before your changes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)