This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I've moved 'Ephraim the Syrian' to 'Ephrem the Syrian'. I assumed that anyone who was watching that page and was interested had a chance to express a view. I'm going to work back through articles linked to the old page, so that they can be linked to the new one (it's currently on redirect). I've also got material I've been working on that should fill out the article a bit. I hope these alterations are to everyone's satisfaction.
Armenian tranlation of his name before it was corrupted by the Syrian Orthodox Church: "Soorp Yeprem Asori"  and here Chaldean 10:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC) (This argument is wrong, links aren't working either. The term Asori has nothing to do with the Assyrians. If you translate the name Asori it means Syrian. Don't put false names here, since the Syriac Orthodox Church, where St. Ephrem the Syrian was a member of, called him Aramean! It is absolutely false if you believe an Armnenian translation above a Syriac.)
"Today, Saint Ephrem presents an engaging model of Asian Christianity, which might prove a valuable source of theological insight for Christian communities that wish to break out of the European cultural mould. Ephrem also shows that poetry is not only a valid vehicle for theology, but is in many ways superior to philosophical discourse for the purpose of doing theology. He also encourages a way of reading the Bible that is rooted more in faith than in critical analysis. Ephrem displays a deep sense of the interconnectedness of all created things, which could develop his role in the church into that of a 'saint of ecology'. There are modern studies into Ephrem's view of women that see him as a champion of women in the church. Other studies have focused on the importance of 'healing' imagery in Ephrem. Ephrem, then, confronts the contemporary church as an orthodox saint engaged in a theology that is at once nonwestern, poetic, ecological, feminist, and healing."
This section of the article is very somewhat problematical, although I don't agree or disagree with the conclusions they should be cited and rewritten to reflect that they are the opinions and conclusions of reliably sourced commentators and not simply a personal point of view or original research/synthesis. Awotter (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The statements need to have proper citations to reliable sources. Otherwise I'd recommend removing the content. Additionally, other scholarly viewpoints should be presented. Can anyone help out with the citations? Majoreditor (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I left a message on the editor's page who added the section (my objections seem a little harsher on reflection than I meant, hence the strike-out) I agree that inline citations and identification of any respective pov's would help. Awotter (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This looks like its drawn from Luminous Eye. It is the somewhat promotional opinion of Sebastian Brock. I agree that it needs to be referenced properly and reworded to make it clear that this is scholarly evaluation of Ephrem's potential contribution to modern theology. Thanks, Awotter, for bringing this to attention. I'll redraft it with sources. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)