Template talk:Oriental Orthodox sidebar

Liturgies

1/2/2024 The West Syriac Rite (yes, Syriac Orthodox Church) possesses the ancient form of the East Syriac Rite (which did not leverage the liturgy of Mor Addai, but leveraged the Syriac Orthodox anaphora of St. John Chrysostom, not to be confused with the Basilian one used in the Greek Orthodox Church). The liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, while not ordered by the Orthodox communion (no Council of Trullo), is still used. Another East Syriac influence is the Fast of Nineveh. The Armenian Rite, as is. The Coptic Rite, as is. The Ge'ez Rite, as is. The Malankara Rite, as is. Explanation for the rite of the Latins is that Mar Alvares led the Roman Church into communion. They use the mass of Gregory the Dialogist (and were allowed to retain such, unknown if modifications have occurred). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiVaticanII (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodox Churches

Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church and Malabar Independent Syrian Church are two churches in India which follows Oriental Orthodox faith. What is the problem in including these churches in the portal? ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Any Church in this world which follows the Oriental Orthodox creed, beliefs and rituals are considered Oriental Orthodox .You may please read the Wikipedia articles about Jacobite Church and Thozhiyoor Church. Both are Oriental Orthodox churches. May be NOT all these churches are in full communion. However Oriental Orthodoxy portal encompasses all churches in the world which follows Oriental Orthodox creed, beliefs, and rituals.Thanks Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an unnecessary confusion knowingly or unknowingly brought in to this topic. Anyway I will answer to your arguments here:

First of all, Oriental Orthodoxy is a "Communion" and this portal/side bar intended for the member churches in this communion - churches which are not part of this communion can not be listed out here. Eg: Malabar Independent Church. There are many churches outside Oriental Orthodoxy but follow OO tradition & faith. Similar case is applicable for Eastern Orthodox also. But those churches will not be considered as OO church/ EO Church. That is, just following the faith will not qualify a church to be considered as OO/EO/Catholic/Anglican, definitely they should be in Communion.

Now we will discuss about Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox church, it is an autonomous body of Syriac Orthodox Church and its Primate is Patriarch of Syriac Orthodox church, that means its a regional entity of Syriac Orthodox Church. Its not an AUTOCEPHALOUS church as other Six churches namely Ethiopian, Coptic, Armenian, Syrian, Indian(Malankara Orthodox)and Eritrean Churches. Regional/autonomous bodies of any OO churches will not be considered as a separate OO church member. That is , French Coptic Orthodox Church is an OO church as it is part of Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church is an OO church as it is part of Syriac Orthodox Church. But there is no point in listing out all the autonomous bodies of these 6 member churches. It is irrelevant and redundant. In case of Catholic Church, there are more than 30 churches having autonomous power. Are we going to list out all of them in the 'Christianity' template?? no, wee keep only 'Catholic' ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs, rituals and creeds , NOT any communion of churches. Otherwise provide three valid published reference for your claim.

If this portal name is Oriental Orthodoxy, it should include the churches which follows that faith.I am wondering WHO decided that only the churches in communion will be listed in this portal? Just curios to know. Jacobite church is an Autonomous church with its head as Catholicos. It is a Malankara Church which follows Oriental Orthodox faith. Simply using the word Malankara for denoting Orthodox syrian church is not correct. Malanakara encompasses all Malankara churches= Malankara Church. Instead, use Malankara Orthodox to denote Orthodox Syrian church.Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Also about your claim of communion---please give any one reference for this. I have gone through the reference you cited. It doesn't say anything about any communion in the reference. If it says so , please quote it here from the reference. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

If a church to be considered as a Oriental Orthodox church, other member churches are also to be recognized them as a OO member church. Its not based on any particular church's claims. Again its not based on what belief/creed they follow. For example, tomorrow any bishop from Malankara Orthodox/Malankara Jacobite form a new church and claims to be an OO church (even if they claim the new church an autocephalous one), its definitely not going to be listed here. ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

On your remark "Jacobite church is an Autonomous church with its head as Catholicos" - The Catholicose of Jacobite is not considered as an OO church Head as Armenian Catholiose or Malankara Orthodox Catholicose or any other Primates of other OO member churches listed in the template. Jacobite church will not be invited separately for any international oriental orthodox meetings since they are part of Syriac Orthodox Church. ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

On your concern "Simply using the word Malankara" - Please note, the link provided leads to Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Same style is followed in other OO churches Coptic & Syriac, even Catholic/EO churches are having the name "Coptic" or "Syriac" but in this template they are referred as simply Coptic or Syriac. - --171.48.29.171 (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Again on your comment "Also about your claim of communion---please give any one reference for this" . Its not my claim and its a fact and that statement has been there in Wiki Article on Oriental Orthodoxy since years. Please refer the britanica article also : https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christology/Eastern-Orthodox-Christology#ref1228673 which says "The other main branch of Orthodoxy is constituted by the six national churches of the Oriental Orthodox communion: the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, the Malankara (Indian) Syrian Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church" . - 171.48.29.171 (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, this turned into a rather massive debate in just one day... Okay. Let me add my own contribution here. The Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church is an autonomous subdivision of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Some of the other Oriental Churches also have similar subdivisions - for example there are four different autonomous Armenian Churches under the umbrella of the Armenian Apostolic Church. We could theoretically include all these different subdivisions in the sidebar, but then it would get extremely long and clunky. It's much better to simply list the main autocephalous Churches, of which there are six, without their various subdivisions.

As for the Malabar Independent Syrian Church, that is a small Church that affirms itself to be Oriental Orthodox but is not part of the Oriental Orthodox communion. There are several other such Churches in the world as well - for example the British Orthodox Church. I don't see a reason to include these in the sidebar, just like the Catholic Church sidebar does not include any one of the many groups that call themselves Catholic but are not in communion with Rome.

So, my vote is for the original version of the template, where there is one single "Malankara" link and that link goes to the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, which is the only one of the three Malankara Churches that is both autocephalous and part of the OO communion. It also seems to be the largest, at least according to the numbers we have right now on the wiki. I would be fine with switching the link to point to the article Malankara Church as well (the one that talks about all three Churches collectively), although I think that is a second-best option. Ohff (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I really appreciate Ohff's effort in going through the discussions and providing the suggestions. You understood things in right way. But I have a disagreement with the second best option - giving the link to Malankara Church from OO Side Bar - for the reason that it would be a factual error. Let me explain that here: Apart from Malankara Orthodox, Malankara Jacobite and Malabar Independent there are other 2 churches also shares Malankara Church heritage and uses "Malankara" in their names - they are : Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church (website:http://marthoma.in/) and Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. These churches have considerable population when compared to Malabar Independent Church. But Marthoma church is a reformative church and Syro-Malankara is an eastern catholic church. Also these churches are NOT part of Oriental Orthodox faith (officially or unofficially) and they do not follow Miaphysite Christology!! Thanks - --171.48.29.171 (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Another Church follows Oriental Orthodox faith but not part Oriental Orthodox Communion is Antiochian Syriac Orthodox Church in Germany. Similar to Malabar Independent Syrian Church, British Orthodox Church and Antiochian Syriac Orthodox Church there are many other churches also follow Oriental Orthodox faith. But it is not a good idea to list them as part of Oriental Orthodox Side Bar. If really needed, create a separate section in the Oriental Orthodox article and list them out there. ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

What is my opinion is Oriental Orthodoxy is a Christology like Nestorian or Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. It is not just about communion of some churches that follow that Christology. The communion or ecumenical relationship only developed recently. Oriental Orthodoxy is a branch of Christianity (separated from the main branch after the Council of Chalcedon in 451)ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Oriental Orthodoxy is a specific communion and that is how all the sources treat it. That is also how wikipedia treats it, and how it treats all the other similar branches of Christianity. "Roman Catholic", for example, is not a Christology. It is a specific communion. Look at the Catholic Church sidebar. Notice that it does not include the Old Catholic Church, or the Polish National Catholic Church, or the Celtic Catholic Church, or any of the other churches that consider themselves Catholic but are not part of the main communion. The Oriental Orthodox christology is called Miaphysitism and it has its own separate article. Likewise, Catholic Church and Catholicism are different articles. Ohff (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

However, I can propose a compromise. This sidebar has a section called "other topics". If you'd like, we can include the Thozhiyoor Church there. I can also create a section on autonomous churches that would include the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church and the other subdivisions. What do you think? Ohff (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether large or small , all churches which follow the same christology are equal and should be included in the Oriental Orthodoxy portal. Why some people restrict some churches only based the claim that they are auto cephalous or largest among Malankara churches? Is that a fair policy? Thanks.Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

We could theoretically include all these different subdivisions in the sidebar, but then it would get extremely long and clunky??????. If it is long and clunky to include in this portal , Why these churches are NOT mentioned in the Oriental Orthodoxy article which has good space there ? ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

They are mentioned in the Oriental Orthodoxy article. The section of that article dealing with India mentions both the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church and the Malabar Independent Syrian Church. Maybe the section should be longer and say more things about them, but they are clearly mentioned. Ohff (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodox is a geo-locatory classification and Miaphysite is a Christological classification. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

On what basis you are saying its a geo-locatory classification? ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Kokkarani, Let me give the clarification to your statement "Why some people restrict some churches only based the claim that they are auto cephalous or largest among Malankara churches? Is that a fair policy?". The answer is : It is not 'some people' or 'Wikipedia' is making this 'restriction'. Oriental Orthodox communion is making this restriction. Wikipedia's policy is to simply present the facts. Tomorrow OO communion adds another church into their communion, the very next moment Wikipedia articles will be updated accordingly irrespective of whether the church is autocephalous /autonomous or largest/smallest. Currently only six churches (Coptic,Armenian,Syriac,Ethiopian,Indian(Malankara),Eritrean) are the member churches in OO family. Autonomous bodies/regional entities of this churches can not be count as a separate member as they are part of their mother churches. Thanks - --171.48.29.171 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments seems to be so funny.Please give any proof for your claim that Oriental Orthodox communion is making that restriction. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read this from Encyclopædia Britannica : The other main branch of Orthodoxy is constituted by the six national churches of the Oriental Orthodox communion: the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, the Malankara (Indian) Syrian Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Link- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christology/Eastern-Orthodox-Christology#ref1228673 . ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Another reference from New Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/orthodox-and-oriental-orthodox-churches . Thanks ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Compromise?

We are getting too far from the original point. Dear Kokkarani, what precisely do you want? For the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church and Malabar Independent Syrian Church to be included in this sidebar? Ok, we can do that. They're not autocephalous Churches, but the Jacobite Church is Oriental Orthodox (because it's part of an OO Church), and the Thozhiyoor Church is certainly strongly related to Oriental Orthodoxy (it has ordained bishops for Oriental Orthodox Churches in the past, according to its wiki article). I proposed a compromise already, but I'm not sure if my proposal was understood. I will go ahead and implement it in the sidebar. Ohff (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. See this edit. The Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church and Malabar Independent Syrian Church are included in the sidebar now. The only problem was with including them in the main list of autocephalous Churches (because they are not autocephalous). I never opposed including them at all. Is this compromise acceptable to you? Ohff (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Malankara Jacobite church and Malabar Inependent syrian church are the same except it has its own heirarchy. I don't understand what is the christological/theological difference to alieniate some of the churches.ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no christological or theological difference. The difference is only organizational, like you said it yourself: The Malabar Inependent Church has its own hierarchy. But let's talk in concrete terms, about what we want for the sidebar. Is the sidebar ok with you the way it is now? If not, tell me what you want to change about it, and let's talk about that. Maybe I'll just agree with your proposed changes - I don't know. I'd like to hear them first. Ohff (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What I think is, it is not fair to include Thozhiyoor church in other topics. Better make another heading like Other Miaphysite churches (not in formal Oriental Orthodox communion). As far I know Thozhiyoor church clergy are educated in Jacobite Seminary. Both are same churches with different names and different hierarchy. ThankaMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Also the usage of Syriac branches and Malankara branches are not proper. The church listed in Goa is not a Malankara church. So it cannot be listed as Malankara branches. Malankara Jacobite church is a Malankara church as well as a syriac church. It is NOT fair to use Malankara for Malankara Orthodox church as the church constitution stated Malankara church is a division of Syrian church. It is fair to show Malankara Church denoted by Malankara. This is because Malankara church embraced Miaphysite christology in 1665 theoretically. Malankara church branches are-Malnkara Jacobite, Malankara Orthodox and Malabar Independent church. Whether autocephalous, autonomous or independent are secondary. Or we could rename the portal as Oriental orthodox (Miaphysite); so that every is represented fairly and equally. Waiting for your opinion. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

New suggestion is: Malankara should be used to denote Malankara church as it embraced Miaphysite christology in 1665 theoritically. Malankara branches are Orthodox, Jacobite and Thozhiyoor church.

There is no point in saying one church is autocephalous and another is autonomous. As per the constitution of Malankara Orthodox church , Malnkara church is a division of Syriac orthodox church and its head is the Patriarch of Antioch. In that case Malankara orthodox a branch of Syriac church. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. I am talking about organizational structure, and you are talking about church traditions. You said "whether autocephalous, autonomous or independent are secondary". For me, that issue was primary, not secondary. That is why we disagreed!

It is as if we were looking at, for example, French Guiana, and the question was: Should it be listed as part of France, or as part of South America? In terms of organization, it is part of France. In terms of culture and traditions, it is part of South America.

I prefer to list churches in accordance with their organizational relationships: whether they are autocephalous, autonomous or independent. But you prefer to list them in accordance with their traditions: whether they are Coptic, Armenian, Malankara, etc. So you want all the Malankara Churches to be listed together, because they all follow Malankara traditions, even though they are not all organized together as one entity.

You think it doesn't matter how they are organized, as long as they are Malankara. Ok. So there are two ways to list the churches: According to organization, and according to traditions. Can we maybe list them both ways? Hmm. Let me think about that. Ohff (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have implemented a new idea. I grouped the autonomous and independent churches together (i.e. I grouped the Thozhiyoor church with the others), and then I arranged them by tradition, instead of organizational membership. This way the Malankara churches are grouped together, and not listed under Syriac. What do you think? Ohff (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ohff, pls do not take any immediate decision. Looks like we are going to move things from simple to complex state. Let me give some time to comment on the same. ---171.48.21.9 (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

All I want is to find an acceptable solution for everyone so that we can reach agreement and bring this dispute to an end. Kokkarani obviously wants the Jacobite and the Thozhiyoor church to be listed a certain way on this template. I may not agree with him, but what's the point of arguing? The issue is trivial. Let's find a compromise and move on. Ohff (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please refer this:

orthodoxwiki.org/Oriental_Orthodox

to see whether Oriental Orthodox is a communion or churches that follows Miaphysite christology. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

As the anon pointed out, Encyclopedia Britannica says that it is a communion of churches. But in any case, it doesn't matter. We don't have to agree on what we think about Oriental Orthodoxy. We only need to agree on what this sidebar should look like. So, both of you please let me know what you think about the latest version. Ohff (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please search further to understand member churches in this Communion. As you know there are splits happening in all the OO churches, some time, the new church will be having very less believers , may be of 1000 members. Of course they will follow Miaphysite christology if they are not joining in EO/Catholic communion. Can we list all these churches in the side bar for the reason they just follow Miaphysite christology ---171.48.21.9 (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that there are many churches follows Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox faith/theology outside the communion, but only the churches in communion is referred as a EO/OO church - --171.48.21.9 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do understand that Oriental Orthodox is defined as churches that follows Miaphysite/Monophysite christology. It is NOT a communion of some churches. WHAT I MEAN IS DEFINING ORIENTAL ORTHODOX!. Sorry Thanks0Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Why are we arguing about this? Does it matter for the sidebar? Let's talk about what the sidebar should look like, not about the definition of Oriental Orthodoxy. We had a good discussion about this earlier, and I made some changes based on this discussion. Let's talk about the changes. Kokkarani and 171., what do you think about the sidebar as it is now? Ohff (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please refer

orthodoxwiki.org/Oriental_Orthodox for the side bar. I agree to this.Include Malabar Indepenent church also. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. The Malabar Independent church is actually included right now, and listed together with the Jacobite church as being part of the Malankara tradition. See my latest edit. Is this good? Ohff (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This is NOT acceptable; Why?

Give equal importance to Orthodox, Jacobite and Malabar in depicting the diagram . ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. That is extremely inaccurate. They should not be given equal importance because they are not equal, in status or in size. But fine, sure, if it will get this pointless argument to end, then I'm willing to do that. However, this reminds me, what about this version? I would have accepted that one. And I think that one is better than listing each individual Malankara subdivision. But 171.48.21.9 did not accept it. Right now, I would prefer this older version, for the sake of ending the dispute. 171, what do you think? Ohff (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You couldn't make some churches superior nor some churches inferior. All are equal in Christ. This is the motto.ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course they are. That is not in question. The question is, how do we list them in a way that is helpful to people who are learning about Oriental Orthodoxy? You are suggesting that we should ignore how they are organized, and list all churches the same way - no matter if they are autocephalous, or autonomous, or independent, or whatever. And no matter if they have millions of members or just a few thousand. I think that's a mistake. But for the sake of ending the dispute, I am willing to make that compromise, if 171., is also willing. I would prefer, however, to list a single combined article for all the Malankara churches. Like this one, for example. Ohff (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The way I suggest is

Autocephalous Churches-

Armenian | Alexandrian | Ethiopian | Syrian | Indian | Eritrean

Autonomous Churches-

Armenian: Cilician | Jerusalem | Constantinople

Alexandrian: Britain

Antioch: Malankara Jacobite

Independent Churches-

Malabar Independent Syrian Church

ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Since Malankara Orthodox church is also called as Indian Orthodox church, it is apt to use Indian notation. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, in that case I completely agree! But... isn't that basically the way the sidebar is now, except that "autonomous" and "independent" are combined into one tab now? (and I think they can remain combined, since the independent category has a single church). And of course we would need to change the link from "Malankara" to "Indian" among the autocephalous churches. Ohff (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Malabar church should be categorized as Independent as its name says so. I think all the churches could be listed in the first place. ::ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk)

I am against these proposals. First of all why do we need to make such changes. Till now any valid arguments or supporting references are provided by user:kokkarani. Ohff, pls do not make any more changes in template We can not sacrifice the facts for getting into a comprise mode. Let's take the help of Admin. I am confident I can explain them on this topic and get the things right. I need to find the right person in admin who is having good knowledge in church history.--171.48.21.9 (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am ok with referring Malankara Orthodox Church as "Indian(Malankara)" in the sidebar and disagree wit all othe suggestions-171.48.21.9 (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok... But I still think it would be much better to compromise. I think Kokkarani is being reasonable now and we are close to a good solution. He agrees that there are 3 categories of churches (autocephalous, autonomous, independent), and he agrees with listing them separately. That would be very close to what we have now, with just a few modifications. I have an idea for how to make it work.

As for getting an admin involved, I'm not sure what you would expect them to do. Their job isn't to make content decisions, it's to enforce the rules and make sure that editors are discussing things in a constructive and polite manner (and not edit warring). An admin isn't going to tell us how to organize the churches on this template. We're still going to have to agree on that among ourselves. We have to build consensus. Ohff (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have implemented the suggested change to "Indian", since we all agreed on that. Ohff (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see my suggestions:
1. Need to add Malankara in bracket for Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church reference in the sidebar . That is what I meant. It should be Indian(Malankara). Not good to remove the official name of a member church in OO communion.
2. Do not make any changes in appearance for coptic,ethiopean, armenian, eritrean, indian(malankara) churches in the template. Names of these churches should be displayed below heading0 = Oriental Orthodox Churches

Oriental Orthodox Churches
Coptic.Ethiopian.Armenian.Syriac.Eritrean.Indian(Malankara) 

3.In Subdivisions section,

 Autonomous Churches:
 Coptic : French
 Armenian: Cilicia, Constantinople, Jerusalem
 Syriac: Malankara Jacobite
 Independent Churches:
 Malabar Independent, xyz, abc

Thanks - --122.172.248.47 (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I added "(Malankara)" to the "Indian" link, as you suggested. Kokkarani also suggested on my Talk page that the link pointing to the Malabar Independent Syrian Church should be changed from "Thozhiyur" (which is an informal name) to "Malabar". So I did that as well. For the precise way to list the churches, though, I think we need to get everyone to agree first. And it seems we are very close to that! You and Kokkarani suggested very similar things (basically, keeping the structure we have now, but listing autonomous and independent churches separately). So let's see what Kokkarani says about the structure you just suggested now. Ohff (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok Ohff. Thanks. Please share a review copy of the sidebar before making it as final- 171.48.29.193 (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ohff, I am still in doubt whether we need to list out the churches which are not in communion with the mainstream churches in Oriental Orthodoxy. Because all the references which I read clearly says Oriental Orthodox is a communion of six Churches - Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Syriac, Eritrean,Indian(Malankara). Please go through these links too: 1, 2, 3, 4. Anyway, I am leaving this for your decision. One another thing I would like to highlight is classifying churches which are not in communion with Oriental Orthodox family as "Independent"- This will lead to another confusion because all OO churches (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Syriac, Eritrean,Indian) are independent (but in communion with each other)!!. Hence If we are planning to list the churches which are not in communion with OO family, we need to find a different term to categorize them, not as "Independent". Anonym---122.167.154.137 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Ohff, It has been more than a month we are waiting to conclude this topic. I am making following changes in the side bar as I mentioned before
1)In subdivision section, under "Autonomous churches"
a) changing "Autonomous and independent churches grouped by tradition" to "Autonomous" churches. Reason is all the autocephalous oriental orthodox churches are hierarchically independent.
b) "Malankra: Jacobite, Malabar " to "Syriac: "Malankara Jacobite"
2)Removing Malabar Independent Church from the template, let us first get a proper reference that Malabar Independent church follows oriental orthodoxy. Then will think, in which category we can include this church. Thanks -122.166.183.164 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for leaving the discussion, it has been a busy month for me outside of Wikipedia. But regarding your changes, they seem fine to me. I think a reasonable argument could be made in favour of your version as well as in favour of the previous version, and I am largely indifferent between them. If there are no further objections, I will not modify your edits. Ohff (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)