Talk:Zoora

"Za'ura" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Za'ura has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 27 § Za'ura until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 22:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Assyrian

@Hogshine: Why do you call him an Assyrian? Srnec (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It previously called him 'Syrian' and linked to Roman Syria, which does not even include Amida.

I have also noticed you've reverted the name change. Z'ura the Anchorite is not made-up insomuch as calls him that. Nonetheless, Zoora is still an improper spelling used nowhere else. Hogshine (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a source in the bibliograph with the title "Zoora, monk". The source you link does not call him "Z'ura the Anchorite". It calls him an anchorite. That is all. You could move it to Z'ura. Is there another famous Z'ura?

You are right that the link to Roman Syria was inappropriate. Muriel Debié, "Syriac Historiography and Identity Formation", says that "Z'ura the stylite is called a Syrian (suryāyā) by the Chalcedonians in Constantinople". I don't think the link Assyrian people is supported by sources. Srnec (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I would move it to Z'ura then, solely based on its usage in the English Patrologia Orientalis . This is also its precise pronunciation in the original Syriac. I don't believe there's any other Z'ura (or variation of the name altogether) in Syriac literature; the closest thing is an unrelated village in modern-day Syria. So an epithet may not be necessary unless it's conventional to have it for religious figures e.g. Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Luke the Evangelist — that's why I added it in the first place.

The Syrians/Syriacs (sūryōyō, sūrāyā, others) of Upper Mesopotamia (incl. Amida) are ethnic Assyrians. While this may be a contentious topic otherwise, it's straightforward for the sake of this article. The rabbit hole goes deep, but you can take a look at Assyrian continuity, Terms for Syriac Christians, and Syriac people (redirects to Assyrians). Potentially, you could write 'Syrian' and have it redirect to Assyrian people.

I'm not sure what Wikipedia convention here is, but you could also get rid of it altogether, since I don't see mention of ethnicity on other religious figures' pages. I leave it all to you. Hogshine (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

it's straightforward for the sake of this article. It is anything but. See Talk:Assyrian_continuity#Restoring_2022_pre-fringe_revision. —Srnec (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Seems like this is one editor's view, with a bold, unsubstantiated claim of "unequivocal WP:FRINGE", and nothing came of it. The article is well-cited from a variety of well-established sources and academics. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, because the 2022 version, despite its various issues (un-/poorly cited, POV, short) still reflects the same view of the current one.

The word Syrian you insist on using with no or improper linkage is polysemic with about 6 different interpretations, and does not reflect the true ethnic identity of Z'ura, who is a Syriac Christian of Upper Mesopotamia i.e. ethnic Assyrian. Hogshine (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I am saying that it is not, as you put it, straightforward. So unless a reliable source calls him "Assyrian", we should not. The descriptor "Syrian" is well-supported and I can add further citations if need be. Srnec (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)