Talk:Knanaya/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New Edits

Recently, user Cuchullain, reverted on mass many changes I had made, after I tried to make the article more reasonable. After a brief discussion he has been kind enough to reinstate some of the changes I had made (though with different wording). I thank him for that, though honestly, I would have *much* rather he just removed whatever was objectionable- and provided his reasoning. The version I put was I believe more detailed and informative.

I have, since his changes, made some minor edits to the article which I believe may merit explanation, and I would like to discuss the introduction of few other points.

Minor Changes (already made):

1. I removed the fact Swiderski thought that some theories regarding the origin of the name Knanaya isn't persuasive. What one particular scholar thinks (as far as I can tell by contemplating his navel) isn't relevant. This is part of my wider concern that the guess work and speculations of western anthropologists are at times given way to much authority. What ought to matter for an encyclopedia are the facts.

2. This is related to point 1. Joseph Chazhikaden in his history of the Southists claims they are Jewish in origin. Swiderski in his tone is dismissive of Chazhikaden. He says "Chazhikaden conceived and promulgated a bold Southist legend." Wikipedia took Swiderski interpretation/guess work one step further by stating that Chazhikaden introduced and popularised a theory.

This implies Chazhikaden created a theory which has now become popular. It completely denies the possibility that what Chazhikaden wrote was already in the oral tradition. I am not here going to prove this is the case (I have more reading to do- I have however read credible sources suggesting that there is more to this theory). This is really significant because Chazhikaden is one of the earliest sources written by Knanaya person, as opposed accounts by the Portuguese, or Northists, or western anthropologists who visited the area for a few months or couple of years etc.

I have therefore made a minor change to say he claimed the Knanaya are Jewish Chritians. Further Chazhikaden was an important figure in the community- in Swiderski it is noted:

"Chazhikaden was a representative of the strongly Southist area of Uzhavoor in the Diwan of Travancore and after the formation of Kerala in 1956 in the Kerala State legislature. He was a noted wit whose sallies were widely reported in newspapers and are still alive in oral tradition."

The source I'm citing is this: https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/1457

Further Important Changes (Not made yet):

1. There are some important changes to be made, but the most important is the following.

In this article there are two important kinds of information: One is historical fact and the other is tradition/legend.

A lot of the article is tradition/legend. There is no shred of solid proof that there was a person called Thomas of Cana, or he led some migrants, and that they were Christians, etc. The earliest sources used (Portuguese material) date from up to a 1000 years after he supposedly existed and the migration took place. However this is very likely oral tradition written down and preserved though probably distorted, and is therefore however important and there is some significant circumstantial support for it (the legend is found in variety of sources, Christian and Hindu).

However, it is relevant to know how the Knanaya of today define themselves, and what they believe to be their origins. It is a key element of their lives and their identity.

The current tradition (I don't know what previously the Knanaya people claimed they were- there is no source information for that) is that they are descendants of Jewish Christians. That is how they identify themselves. I don't know whether or not this is a new tradition or an old tradition, there is no evidence either way. What we do know is that the earliest extant sources (which as far as I can tell date only to around Chazhikaden) written by Knanaya people themselves states they are Jewish Christians. (Older Northist Sources do mention Thomas of Cana came from Jerusalam, and the migrants were from related areas).

This is why I believe it is important to have this in the article, given this is what Knanaya institutions and publications claim (and what many Knanaya people believe).

The citations I give are very reliable evidence for what these institutions believe in, though not on what the actual history was (virtually all source material cited, academic and not, in this article are dubious as to the actual history).

Hence I believe the following paragraph should be in the article (if not in the introduction):

Knanaya churches, including the Catholic Archeparchy of Kottayam, and Knanaya organisations in their publications subscribe to the belief that the Knanaya people are descendents of Jewish-Christian migrants who migrated under the leadership of Thomas of Cana, unlike the Northists who are the descendents of the converts by St Thomas.

2. Further there is evidence (if Western anthropologists can be believed) that there are similarities between Knanaya customs and Cochin Jews hence this should be inserted as well, particularly since it does support the Jewish connection which is so widespread believed among the community:

Western anthropologist such as Swiderski and Weil have noted similarities between Knanaya traditions and those of Cochin Jews.

Finally I honestly believe the version before the recent mass revert (of those sections which I edited) was well cited and better than current version, and a better article would be a modification of that version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knanaya&oldid=656377540

Stansley (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

As I explained, everything I restored was cited to reliable sources by experts in the field. The problem with a number of the recent changes were that they altered or removed reliably-sourced material, or introduced material that wasn't supported by reliable sources. I've altered your two most recent changes as well:

1. I restored the comment from Swiderski on whether the etymologies are convincing. As an expert in this field, his interpretation of the facts is most certainly relevant. It should not be removed, but if you know of a source of similar caliber that disagrees with him, we can include it as well.

2. I altered part of your changes on the Joseph Chazhikaden material as well. Per the words to watch guideline, terms like "noted" are peacock terms that should be avoided. The term claim is also a loaded word, and is in fact more dismissive of Chazhikaden than what was there originally. The given source does indeed say that Chazhikaden "conceived and promulgated" the idea that the Knanaya are descended from Jews, so there's no sense in changing it. Again, if we have a source from a scholar of similar caliber that has another interpretation, we can include that as well. But the previous edits only cited Chazhikaden himself, which is a primary source and therefore problematic in this circumstance.

As with anything, we must rely on high-quality sources written by experts, per our policies on verifiability and due weight. We can and should add more material from other scholars if available, but we can't change material without sources, or introduce non-reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

One more note: the recent edits (possibly by another editor) introduced some new material attributed to papers by Shalva Weil. Weil would be a reliable source for this topic, but unfortunately her work has been widely misused across Wikipedia, including at this article, as can be seen in the above sections. I do not think those works should be included here until we can verify that they're being accurately represented. If we can get that, her voice should be included here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Cúchullain

I would like to have a more senior editor's third party opinion on this. Can you arrange this? I disagree VERY passionately with your points. I hope I can explain this to you, and the third party editor.

1. I completely disagree regarding putting a baseless claim Swiderski has made purely on the grounds you or others consider him an 'expert', and I believe this attitude is not only logically flawed but dangerous. See Argument from authority.

In this specific instance, I don't really care- because I don't find either of the etymologies personally particularly convincing (I personally think the word Cana possibly refers to the medieval Yemenese port Qana (near Al_Mukalla), which was a major port in the Indo-Arab trade links- but this is just a theory and pure guess work). But I object to the codifying of Swiderski's opinions as being authoritative.

There aren't many western scholars who have written on Knanaya and it is unlikely I am going to find one who is going to disagree with every random unbacked opinion Swiderski has made.

Being from a western university and having published in western journals is generally what in today's mainstream currency grants someone an apparent reputation for expertise. A Knanayan scholar who has lived and understands his community is in practice deemed less of an expert regarding his own community's beliefs, practices and traditions, in comparison with a Western scholar who has read some literature, and perhaps done a field work for a limited period of time, and published in a what is deemed International Journal (i.e. nearly all are western journals).

I have read Swiderski critically, who is at best is a western academic who has compiled literature on Knanaya into western scholarly articles, and to these articles added his own opinions, which honestly are not credible at times with biases and prejudices and at some points plain hubris.

Scholars like Swiderski are useful but only in so far as the their content is factual. Uncritical acceptance will lead to the white-washing of non-Western histories and the codifying their biases.

The uncritical acceptance of so called 'experts' unsupported opinions has lead to an eurocentric, neocolonial whitewashing of non-European histories on Wikipedia and is an issue editors in Wikipedia need to address.

I still believe a more accurate to say according Chazhikaden the Knanaya are a Jewish Christian origin or with some wording that doesn't sheeply accept Swiderski's unbacked claim that Chazhikaden made the theory up himself. (I am reading Frykenberg who seems to be quite sympathetic to the Jewish origin theory, but haven't checked his sources).

2. I have explained it is important to include how the Knanaya today define themselves. This is important because it is an important aspect of their identity and culture.

I don't understand why legends which are recorded by the Portuguese or by Western Anthropologists are more valid than equally likely or less likely legends believed by Knanaya people of today. The sources given are primary sources of official bodies including the official Archparchy website of the Knanaya diocese in the Catholic Church, and by reason should be *more* credible than secondary sources.

Wikipedia policy as currently interpreted is codifying a 'Western-European Gaze' as being more legitimate than the way non-western groups identify themselves. The editorial system has become such that it seems a legend however wild is valid only if a western authority has published it and has placed its consent. Logic and reasoning play limited part.

I have previously explained almost 90% of the entire article is not proper history but the recounting of traditions and legends, as recounted in mainly Euro-American sources.

3. As for similarity between Knanaya and Jews. Swiderski says:

"Though the history of the rituals’ development is difficult to trace, it is clear that they are the result of Near Eastern, particularly Jewish, elements combining with native Hindu elements"

Swiderski again: "The Knanaya claim an affinity with the Cochini Jews: a comparative study of the content of the wedding songs of both groups would be very instructive. Weil (1982) has adduced a few common features as evidence of “cultural symmetry” between the Knanaya and Cochini Jews"

Source: http://journal.oraltradition.org/files/articles/3i-ii/7_swiderski.pdf?origin=publication_detail

He cites Weil: Shalva Weil. “Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cnanite Christians and the Cochin Jews of Kerala.” Contributions to Indian Sociology, 16.2:175-96.

The title of Weil's paper and Swiderski's text shows Weil says there are similarities.

Stansley (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to your points, though your formatting makes it a bit difficult to follow. I'm sympathetic to the problem of Indian history being written by Western academics. There may be Indian scholars we could cite for this topic; if so their voices should certainly be included. In some ways, though, it's an unavoidable issue with this kind of writing. Wikipedia can't take the word of its anonymous editors as to what's reasonable or not; we have to rely on what appears in reliable, published sources with expertise in the relevant field. Swiderski is certainly one. We also have to make sure the sources are represented accurately. So for instance in the case of the etymologies, if we just discuss the two etymologies without comment, it implies that either could be credible. This misrepresents Swiderski, who specifically says that neither is credible.

A much bigger issue at Indian articles on Wikipedia has been the addition of biased or dubious material based on non-reliable sources, misrepresented sources, or no sources at all. Just peruse some of the previous sections to see how this has played out at this article before. I don't think you'll find much support for downplaying Swiderski, especially not on those grounds. He is likely one of the best available sources for this topic per our guidelines on reliable sources (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Again, the better solution will be to find other reliable sources whose viewpoints can be incorporated in addition to his.

On Chazhikaden, I'll try to tweak the wording to make it clearer that it's Swiderski's own claim that Chazhikaden originated the Jewish origin theory, and make it clearer that many Knanaya accept it (Swiderski does say this). However, we can't suggest that Chazhikaden was relying on pre-existing folklore without a reliable source that makes that statement directly; as we've established, Swiderski certainly does not argue that.

Finally, there is a mechanism for getting third opinions in the form of WP:3O. There are other forms of dispute resolution if that fails. I'll start a 3o request if you like.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've rewritten the section to attribute claims about Chazhikaden directly to Swiderski, instead of saying them in Wikipedia's voice. There's not much else that can be done so far as Chazhikaden goes with the present sources; Swiderski is very clear in his claims that Chazhikaden developed the Jewish origin legend. I've rearranged a few other things as well.

I've also put in a request for some papers by Shalva Weil from my college library, including "Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India", which you mention. The above material was added by an anonymous editor (was this you?) here. Here you advocated for citing the paper (and a second, misnamed paper), but here it appears you haven't read it. This could be a problem, as I said, I removed that material because Weil's work has been widely misused (and probably distorted) in this and related articles. Hopefully we'll be able to sort that part out soon. I also emailed Dr. Weil about other potential sources to use (I couldn't find any contact info for Swiderski).--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I've restored another removal of this material for the same reasons. I've gotten a copy of Weil's works. I can safely assert that she has been misrepresented throughout Wikipedia. However, her work will be a valuable addition to articles on the Knanaya as well as Indian Jews. I asked her for help identifying other possible sources and she couldn't recommend many. I'll try to get a hold of any I can. She did say there is more recent work but if it's been published I haven't been able to locate it. At any rate, I'll try to include material from Weil soon.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing a blunder under the heading Origins and Traditions

It is stated that This story may reflect a historical migration of East Syrian Christians to India during this time, which established the region's relationship with the Church of the East.!!! The relation between India and the Church of the East was established long before the alleged arrival of Thomas of Cana in 345 AD or in the 8th century. There are several sources which underline this fact. Giving one example here, Bishop John who attended the Council of Nicea in 325, signed himself as Bishop of Great India and Persia, which is a clear evidence for the relation between India and the Church of the East even before the alleged southist migration. Hence, removing the last part (highlighted portion) of the sentence. Achayan (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the sentence is saying (or at least, it's not what it's supposed to say). It's saying that the traditions about Thomas of Cana may be later recollections of an actual historical migration of Syriac Christians, which could have occurred at any earlier date. I've restored the line, since it's important to note this this migration may have been what led to the connection with the Persian Church.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The region's connection with West Asia was established long back due to the presence of Syriac speaking Jews in Malabar and the trade between them. It has nothing to do with Southists. Even Southists reached here only because the region had prior connection with the Church of the East. So it is the other way round. The Persian Church and Indian Church is connected by St. Thomas the Apostle, who is believed to be the founder of both the Churches, and not by southists. Such fake southist propaganda can not be kept in wiki unless you come up with solid evidences that there was no Malabar-Persia connection before the arrival of southists. Achayan (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As a consensus, I have replaced the word established with strengthened, which would be more realistic. ThanksAchayan (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That edit missed the correct sense: the connection between India and the Persian Church was "established" at some point, it's the date that's not clear. This is what the cited source is getting at. The source is Stephen Neill; it's certainly not "Southist propaganda".--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no problem mentioning the traditions in the lead either; they're an important part of the culture and the article. Per WP:LEAD, the introduction summarizes the key parts of the article body. Also, the material on the church denominations and the diaspora is cited to Swiderski in the article body.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Jewish origin tradition in the lede

The Jewish origin tradition is significant enough to the Knanaya culture, and to this article, that it deserves a brief mention in the lead. Again, per WP:LEAD, the introduction should summarize the key parts of the article body, and this is one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We also can't reuse Swiderski's "conceived and promulgated" phrasing without attribution in the lead, for multiple reasons. For one, it's plagiarism. For another, this is his interpretation, we can't put it in Wikipedia's voice without attribution. It's enough to say the traditions were popularized in the 20th century and explain in detail below.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Knanaya → Southists – Per WP:COMMON NAME. The article clearly states that the common Malayalam name for the group is "Tekkumbhagar" and its English equivalent is "Southists". Almost all the citations use the term Southists of Southerners to refer the gorup. Giving some examples here: The most widely used WP:RS, Swiderski, uses the term Southists more often. In fact, the title of his book itself is "Northists and Southists". Again, Baum & Winkler uses the term Southerners, which another variant of Southists, and do not even mention the term Knanaya. Again Knanaya is not used in Neil's book. Also, the title of the book written by Joseph Chazhikkadan is Tekkumbhagasamudaya Charithram which is translated in English as History of the Southist Community (Swidersky also verifies this). Same is the case with other references too. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC) – Achayan (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Achayan:: Or to Southists (Kerala) :: there are or were many north-related and south-related factions across the world. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Anthony Appleyard:: At present, the page Southists is being redirected to Knanaya. There are no disambiguation pages also for the title Southists. So I think we can directly move to Southists. Achayan (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think. Swiderski's "Northists and Southists" article (p. 73) specifies that the term "Southist" was an old name even at that time (1988). He uses it because he's discussing the former Northist-Southist divide, which was important historically but isn't any longer. "Knanaya" is the preferred modern term. He says the same in his book Blood Weddings: the Knanaya Christians of Kerala: "The Knanaya called themselves "Southists" ("Tekum- bhagar") until rather recently but as their history has lost all reference to the Northist-Southist split so they have ceased to use the term" (78).--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes): "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title." "Knanaya" is definitely in common use in English sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You have stated above (under section Jewish origin tradition in the lede), "this is his (Swiderski's) interpretation, we can't put it in Wikipedia's voice without attribution". So your claim based on Swiderski's cannot be considered valid. Again, Joseph Chazhikkadan, himself a Southist, uses "History of the Southist Community" as the title of his book. Moreover, if you see the WP:RS given in the article, more than 95% of them uses the term Southists. The community is best known by the term Southist. Knanaya has very less popularity among the public and is uncommon. Achayan (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The very first sentence under the heading "Names": The usual Malayalam name for the group is Tekkumbhagar. This is generally translated into English as "Southist". Achayan (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. Swiderski is a perfectly reliable source (we just have to attribute his own views to him). In both those books he's clear Knanaya is the preferred modern term as of the 80s. Knanaya certainly isn't uncommon, there are hundreds of Gbooks hits. In fact, it seems to be even more common than Southist, according to Ngram.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Swidersky himself counter your argument. He states that "The Malayalam names for the Christian divisions are ALWAYS Tekkumbhagar-Vadakumbhagar, but the English equivalents may be Nordhist-Suddhist or Northerner-Southerner, though Northist-Southist is MOST COMMON". Leaving apart Swidersky, we know Baum and Winkler not even mentions the name Knanaya, instead uses Southerners. Southist writer Chazhikkaden also uses Tekkumbhagar (Southists). Your opinion that Southists were called Southists all the way from 4th or 8th century till 1980, but now they changed to Knanaya is very strange. The Southists may be able to identify the term Knanaya, but the majority of the public is ignorant of it. And the wiki page is not written exclusively for Southists, but for the common public. As all the reliable references prefer the term Southists, we will also have to go with the term Southists. We can mention the term Knanaya with due importance inside the article. Achayan (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest you to revert the changes you have made to the article (subsection Names) on a topic under discussion until we reach a consensus. Also, I am glad to notice that history of this talk page contains several requests to move the page to Tekkumbhagar or Southists, which are literally unanswered. Hope you would understand that the term Knanaya is yet to reach the common public and the page move is necessary, either to Southists or Tekkumbhagar. Lets go with the reliable sources and move the page. We shall also explain in detail regarding the newly coined term Knanaya in the article. Achayan (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I moved your comments as they appeared to be directed at me rather than to Anthony. Swiderski says that "the name for the Christian divisions are always Tekkumbhagar-Vadakumbhagar", which means Southists and Northists. But in the first paragraph he is clear that "Kerala Christians today seldom acknowledge this division". Right after discussing the names, he writes, "I first learned of them in discussions with Knanaya, members of a Kerala Christian ethnic group, who say they were once called Southists and occasionally repeat older legends to explain the name." The name "Southist" is the older term, deriving from a time that the North-South division was more important in the Saint Thomas Christian community. It's still in use, but Swiderski is clear that Knanaya is the preferred modern term, in this and other works. While "Southist" is still in use and is a perfectly acceptable term in the article body, the name of the article should be Knanaya. And no, I'm not going to revert the changes to the name section as they're closer to what Swiderski says.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not impose your conclusions to Swidersky. And you are silent about the other sources which I mentioned! And if you are saying, there is no Northist-Southist division now, then the article itself is irrelevant and we will better merge this with Saint Thomas Christians and dedicate a couple of paragraphs explaining the conflict history. Especially, when we do not have an article titled Northists. Are you ready for that? If not, the name of the article should be Southists. You are ignoring all the other sources and taking selected content from a particular source and coming to absurd conclusions. Achayan (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Baum and Winkler (p 52):"Their descendants have been called Southerners (Tekkumbhagar) UP TO THE PRESENT DAY (2003)" This is the bottomline. Do you need anything more? Achayan (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, I'm just stating what Swiderski says. He says that the North-South element of the division is old and no longer especially relevant to either side of the community. As of 1987 the division is thought of in different ways than it was historically. And he's very clear that Knanaya is the preferred term today, and as I showed with the Ngram, it's as or more common than "Southists".

As for the other sources, it's true that Neill and Baum & Winkler don't appear to mention the term "Knanaya", but nor do they get into the issue of the names specifically. The book by Joseph Chazhikkadan is in Malayalam and is from 1940![1] As I said before, both of Swiderski's works get into the name issue and specify that "Knanaya" is now preferred. Shalva Weil's "Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: the Cnanite Christians and the Cochin Jews of Kerala" uses an alternate spelling of Knanaya. Other common works using Knanaya include Paul Thenayan's The missionary consciousness of the St. Thomas Christians (p. 14), Israel J. Ross's "Ritual and Music in South India" (p. 81) and the St. Thomas Christian Encyclopedia of India, where their entry is under "The Knanaya Community of Kerala". So yeah, I'm standing by my !vote.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Achayan: To people living in and around Kerala, Kerala may seem central. But to me here in England, the name "Southists" first suggested the American Civil War, and Southists (Kerala) with disambiguater would be clearer to people living away from Kerala. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment Can clarification be given on claim of commonname. [Ngrams on "Knanaya,Southist,Southists" indicate "Knanaya" as being the more commonly used term and this is before considering that Southist is also a surname and may be used elsewhere due to ambiguity. GregKaye 13:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "Southist" (and "Southists") will return hits for other things of the name.[2]. "Knanaya" has also been written in English in a few different ways at different times, including Cnanite, Knanite, and Qnanaye. We also need to consider Neil's statement that by the 1980s "Southist" was no longer widely used and Knanaya was preferred: "The Knanaya called themselves 'Southists' ('Tekum- bhagar') until rather recently but as their history has lost all reference to the Northist-Southist split so they have ceased to use the term" (Blood Weddings, p. 88).--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

August 2015

I've twice reverted some recent changes for several reasons. The style is very poor, containing incorrect capitalization, verb agreement, and word; for instance, the first sentence said "The Knanaya, are christian sect that claims to be the followers of a Syrian Christian merchant Thomas of Cana tradition." The comma after "Knanaya" is wrong, "Christian" is uncapitalized, and the verb "claims" doesn't agree with the previous "are". In addition to the style errors, the intro makes false claims about the nature of the Knanaya. They aren't a "Christian sect", they belong to the same churches as other Saint Thomas Christians, and there are more than one. Additionally, the sources are clear that the Thomas of Cana tradition is rarely advanced today.
As before, the edits also include a mass of biased or simply incorrect information. For one of many examples, the edits claim the Knanaya were once known as "Suddhist" and that this means "Purist". None of the sources back it up and it appears to be flatly false; I'm pretty sure the word is a reference to "South". Other passages are simply biased, for instance, " In the modern ecumenical era these terms are considered insignificant and the usage is shunned". This citation also misuses the citation, which says nothing of the sort. Another passage discusses "recent DNA research by Dr. Mini Kariappa," but attributes the claim to the Jacobson and Raj source, which appears to say no such thing. As such there's nothing salvageable here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The edits were reinstated in spite of all the problems addressed above. I suppose we'll have to seek additional help here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, the edits restored all of the above problems. This needs to be addressed before any of the changes are restored.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected due to the disruptive editing. I've restored the previous version. We can talk about potential improvements here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarifications:

1. Knanaya is a part of the Saint Thomas Christians. But in identity they differ and they don't strictly claim to be descendants of those who where proselytized by St.Thomas, Instead, they are followers of Thomas of Cana with syrian traditions. So if you ask are they part of the the Syrian Christians - Yes. Are they part of the St. Thomas Christians - No. So keeping it as a (religious sect: A subdivision of a larger religious group) wouldn't hurt and gives more clarity.

Eg: The marriage customs are really varied and distinct from other Syrian Christians. This is not something that started recently but existed decades before. An earliest documented video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEN1UW86xdI

2. The term Suddhist is a transliterated Malayalam word, If looked otherwise through dictionaries i doubt there would be a meaning. This is a vile representation. But what Suddhist(Malayalam) means is Purist(English).

3. In the modern ecumenical era these terms are considered insignificant and the usage is shunned. The presence Knanaya with other various factions of Saint Thomas Christians are present ranging from Malankara, Orthodox, Jacobite, Catholic to Pentecostal. So calling names and like Southist and Northist are no longer relevant. It is a hate word.

4. "Recent DNA research by Dr. Mini Kariappa," that attributes the claim to the Selva Raj, is from a revised version of the authors article based on recent scientific study. You can check the abstract of Dr. Mini Kariappa with a simple google check, for verification.

5. Why the terms like Southist or Northist should be removed and the unclear tradition sources should be solidified with the existing oral traditions? Swiderski himself casts doubts about Chazhikaden's propagated theories. To understand this one must understand the socio-political structure that existed in that time period. Even today much of the voting in areas like Kottayam, Changanassey, Pala, Ernakulam, Wayanad is based on religious influence. So it is no wonder why Chazhikaden and others created non-existent divisions and religious superiority without the backing of any solidified evidence. Some are there even today who blindly follow it to stir the pot for personal gratifications. One such attempt is the obsession about endogamous marriage, In Kerala during that era members of Hindu religion followed this tradition to keep the finance and vast cultivated lands within the family. As history teaches any new immigrants aren't welcomed at first, so to sustain the growth of the clan when the natives wont let their children to marry with unfamiliar people; It might have been essential to follow an endogamous tradition to secure the marriage rights. This practice might have been existed in an era, but there is no value about it in the present day and age. But as answered in the 3rd clarification, when such widely joint familial traditions have evolved what is the need keep such the perverted plots of some people added to the history of a community to motivate scratches into scabs.

Keeping such perverted material is shady and questionable. This is not a personal attack but an opinion and resent about the content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.18.181 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for finally responding on the talk page, but your response leaves a lot to be desired. None of your comments justify the various problems with your edits.

1.: That's irrelevant. They are still Saint Thomas Christians, regardless of how it originated. This is verified by basically all the sources.

2.: You can't add material without a reliable source to support it. You seem to admit there are no reliable sources that explain the term "Suddhist" in the way you say, meaning it can't be added.

3.: No sources seem verify your claim that "Southist" is a "hate word". The article already makes it clear that "Southist" and the north-south divide are falling out of favor.

4.: The newest edition of Jacobsen and Raj's South Asian Christian Diaspora does not seem to include the material you attribute to it. It's also impossible to find due to the fact that you didn't include page numbers or the name of Kariappa's actual paper. As such it can't go in the article. If you have the direct source from Mini Kariappa, please provide it so it can be vetted. This isn't the only case where you included incomplete or false citations; you also did it with Swiderski's description of Monserrate's account. You also added a line saying "Many of the Knanaya community and religious-organizations accept this to be the factual and conventional account" and an entire paragraph on "existence of such Syrian christian faction" (sic) that have no sources whatsoever. This isn't going to fly

5.: Wikipedia articles include all significant viewpoints, including those with historical significance like the North-South divide in the Saint Thomas Christian community. The rest of your comment is your own speculation. The material isn't "perverted" and there's nothing "shady and questionable" about keeping what high-quality academic sources about the subject say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for opening a channel of conversation. First thing you have to understand is that, I am not the person whom you say that edited those details into the existing page. I am the one who tried to keep neutrality to the whole page.

1. High-quality academic sources are questionable by the way the subject is presented. Swiderski's work is receiving a widely unapproved tone by the community members, itself in this talk page. I guess its time to avoid Swiderski's "claims". If the arguer cant understand it or have lived experience for that matter, then nothing is going to fly. That is understood.

2. Distinction between Knanaya and the rest of the Saint Thomas Christians, are clearly explained. I don't need to justify it.

3. Suddhist, is a word that I saw that was used and the correct explanation was given. So when the matter was pleaded by you. I just informed you about what does it mean why does it mean as such.

4. I haven't seen the "South Asian Christian Diaspora" but have heard in study class' about excerpts citing the DNA Evidence from a local magazine citing Selva Raj revised articles, so the mentioned part from the previous editor is true. I don't even know if it is from the same book you cite. [Doing a good research, could solve that issue] Come on, you cant search for Mini Kariappa's research. Even by simply searching the name, research pops up. That is no real argument and doesn't display the right attitude.

5. Northist or Southist is a "hate word" propagated by [politician's and from fictional accounts-your definition of members of the community and high quality academic sources]. Strangely, there is no mention of it in other Syrian Christian/St. Thomas Christian texts of such divide. When it didn't exist, why even put north-south divide are falling out of favor. Any evidence that is found is unhealthy chain referral which have taken a snow-ball effect from false claims and fictional accounts.

6. All the English are limeys/fog horns, is it a discriminating word or a hate word. Because it doesn't cite anywhere as such, could it be untrue. All the English are the source of evil according to many highly educated Muslim scholars and there are published materials. Does it mean they are true. There is this difference in your logic.

I would say to keep the page neat and clean from biased and broken stories that doesn't let the reader understand anything, and keep the edits as before (because it seemed to be true in facts) and don't allow younglings who look-up for their history & be faced with perverted and untrue material. I cant stress it anymore the need to be self-conscious and good at heart while using administrative privileges.

Look up - "Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning."

Look up - NPOV

Considering that we have at least one editor who's editing from multiple different IP addresses, it would probably be best if you all create an account. That will be the only good way to keep track of who's saying what.

1. Wikipedia articles are based on high-quality academic sources. If you have a problem with how the sources are being used, please clarify. I did a lot of the work here, and made every effort to follow the sources as closely as possible.

2. The article already explains the distinction. However, it's a matter of fact that the Knanaya are part of the Saint Thomas Christian community. Additionally, contrary to your edit, they are not one "christian sect", they belong to multiple different churches that are the same as other Saint Thomas Christians.

3. Again, this doesn't matter unless you have a source explaining it.

4. You attributed your information to the Jacobsen and Raj book, Southeast Asian Christian Diaspora, that's listed in the references. That's a false citation, as it doesn't appear in the book. If it appears in some other reliable source, you need to bring it up or the material can't be added. And no, I'm not going to track down citations by Mini Kariappa without knowing exactly what it is you're trying to cite. I'm not familiar with their work. If you want to include material, the burden of evidence is on you to back it up with a proper citation.

5. Again, the north-south divide is of great historical importance and necessary for an understanding of this community. No citation backs up the claim that "Southist" is a "hate word"; it has been used by members of the community themselves.

6. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

And yes, the page needs to be "neat and clean" and free from bias - from all sides. In my opinion, it does it quite nicely as it is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"And yes, the page needs to be "neat and clean" and free from biased and broken stories - from all sides. In my opinion, it does it quite nicely as it" - Good one. LMGO, :D.

all-define, cant be guessed, :D.

It seems you have invested a lot of time in this page, I hope you could exit from policing this page without hurting, in your time. Otherwise, Good Luck on Edit Wars.

All those wedding customs that were previously entered are true facts. Some editors even point out the weakened statements and distorted speculations of Swiderski as I have did - An article/research that was accepted without any background check, supervision, proper peer review or prepared without proper fieldwork to understand the community or its traditions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.199.14 (talk • contribs)

If it wasn't clear, the changes you made introduced bias, among other problems. We can work on specific changes if they're needed, but everything must be neutral and verifiable according to reliable sources. Swiderski is of course a reliable source for this topic by Wikipedia standards. That means he can be cited, whether you happen to agree with his conclusions or not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"As I said, I removed that material because Weil's work has been widely misused (and probably distorted) in this and related articles" - The same logic applies to Swiderski's source. Especially when community members express unfamiliarity and perplexed by the fantastical nature of the content in the source. Reasons :- Misleading & Poor Quality Data, Fictitious and Irrelevant Elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.199.145 (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I can vouch for the fact that Swiderski isn't being distorted or misused here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Those who propagate a North-South division among Syrian Christians (Unclear) with edits or that between Knanaya Groups, start an other page and propagate those "supposedly true" facts from mysticism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.248.62.156 (talk • contribs)

Stop edit warring. Your edits are disruptive to the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2015

More than emphasizing Knanaya Christian ways,this article seems to propagate and incline more on Tekkumbhagar which none of us(new generation) are aware of through sunday schools or churches. I would like to kindly request that these un-encyclopedic and misleading material be removed or the article be revised in a minimalist manner by avoiding words that can generate tension between communities. As someone said Swiderski's citation are almost fantastical in nature. I can vouch that many elements even the given song isn't transliterated in proper native language. 61.0.76.210 (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: That is not how Wikipedia works. We are not censored, and we rely on reliable sources for our articles. Also, we cannot take your word for it as that constitutes original research which we do not use. If you have a specific request you can make that but it must be formatted in a "Change X to Y" format. Any changes besides general typos and copyediting should be accompanied by a reliable source that backs up what you want to change. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

I've reverted this series of changes. In addition to adding numerous style and factual errors (lines like "The Knanaya, are christian community...", "In the modern ecumenical era earlier discrimination terms that were used is shunned", "Historical evidences", etc.), the changes also contradict the sourced material. Material attributed to Swiderski was excised or altered to make claims not found in the source, and new material lacking any sourcing was added. In general, the edits were detrimental to the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

From previous edit histories the problem is very clear that it has less weight on the "issue at hand" and more tendency to get into the same types of disputes again and again. Whether you're right or wrong on the specifics of this dispute, you're claims are detrimental to the article if you let yourself get into another very similar conflict as in the past. At a certain point, you have to ask yourself, "what am I doing that leads me to get into so many disputes with so many different community members using Wikipedia?". But this shouldn't stop you from promoting Northists and Southists Theory of Swiderski and for the creative writing you may start here Northist and Southist divide among Syrian Christians and the same could be linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.236.248 (talk)

As I explained to you before, Swiderski is obviously a reliable source for this topic, and his material is accurately represented here. We don't remove well-sourced material because certain editors disagree with it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, edit warring and excising well-sourced material are not acceptable. Please stop immediately.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

. The article has been protected. I'm going to restore the last good version. If you have other suggestions or corrections, please discuss them here on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, edit warring by Cúchullain, please give a rest to this obsessiveness. I have seen the edit, it was good. Even the excised material based on one source from Swiderski, his theory was given a separate head, not the current manner of poor editing like weeds in a paddy field Swiderski's widely conflicted theory is jammed with Knanaya article, which makes any reader question what this article is really about. If admin's like NeilN could take up this, it would be great. Because you can see what Cúchullain did after your page protection and it seems its not his/hers first attempts on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.210.249 (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I also concur with the weeding principle pointed out by 59.88.210.249. Like in Matthew 13:24-30. But Cúchullain can also see, if s/he has good intentions and require Swiderski's theory be promoted revert to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knanaya&oldid=693628604 since "obviously reliable" source is kept as it is without deletion, but for clarity in a separate head. At-least I hope this time like other Knanaya community members hoped previously let our voice be heard and the least partially justified with Cúchullain Swiderski division theory terms.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.42.219 (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

For other Knanaya community members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_assistance_needed_at_Knanaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.0.76.25 (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone pretending to be unrelated editors. 61.3.42.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited a comment by 59.88.210.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in the same post they claimed to be a different person, for crying out loud.[3] The reason this page was protected is edit warring by these obviously connected sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts. This is simply not how Wikipedia works. If you'd like to suggest a specific, actionable change to the article, I and other editors are happy to work with you. But you'll find you won't get your way by trying to force your preferences through.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll start with some specific criticisms of your edits.

• For one, I don't agree with either censoring Swiderski's findings, or separating them out into a separate article or section. The material are relevant to this article in these sections, and Swiderski is a perfectly reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. In one place, censoring Swiderski had the effect of making the claims of a Jewish origin for the Knanaya seem plausible, which is the exact opposite of what the source says.
  
• Second, you insterted a bunch of material that either had no sources, had unreliable sources, or misrepresented the sources. You misrepresented Swiderski in several different places, but the most problematic area is your "Marriage customs" section. As has been brought to your attention repeatedly in the past, for example here and here, Wikipedia relies on material that is verifiable to independent, reliable sources. The sources you gave simply don't cut it, and they don't verify most of what you added anyway. We can't accept your original research in the article.
  
• Third, you continue to have difficulty in your writing. Your edits were riddled with mispellings, miscapitalizations, style errors, and general bad English. This is correctable, but your edits effectively rewrote the entire article in broken English.

Again, if you have a specific, actionable change to suggest, I'm happy to work with you to implement it. But it will have to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, if the above message is intended to a specific Administrator or an Editor. Don't consider this response. If in general:

Form the wide criticisms, let us move with the established facts that Swiderski's material isn't a good material to prep this article. I am a Syrian Christian, like me many have stated the absurd nature of Southist-Northist Theory. I am a regular church goer and I haven't heard about this or studied in Bible classes or Church history classes. An archdiocese website isn't some buzzer article, the content is scrutinized and is with the consent of the Bishop and Synod. And many of them are PhD holders from various universities across the world. So the standard of the material is of high quality and not biased or opinions- This is a misunderstanding that wasn't corrected earlier, when such claims where brought. I understand why the above editor is opposed to keep Swiderski's excised material as separate. - When all the weeds as someone wittily quoted is separated, the excised material would seem dubious and irrelevant with self-conflicting claims, stories, opinions or silly stories said over a hot cup of tea. In India Knanaya's are always considered as predecessors of Jewish faction in one way or other. Not only Knanayas most of the Syrian Christians consider as such. In many christian organizations, syrian christian's use both the Christian cross and the Star of David as to showcase their heritage. Swiderski's material isn't about Knanaya at all. It mentions them but mainly as the Title of the the source says - "Northists and Southists" theory. If the name of the Article is changed even as "Northists and Southists", there is no need for any excision and everything might(because there is no southist-northist divisions, in present or past-wouldn't find mentioning of this in any other textual and scholarly syrian christian histories) meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otherwise there is a need for "tough-love" on those who slide through Knanaya community members requests and as the above editor mentioned even back from 2012. I would say keep the excised material excised no matter if the discredited material is promoted by a relative of Swiderski or Swiderski himself.

Policy: A policy is a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes.(Wikipedia) Simply, it is solution oriented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.16.226 (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's still not clear exactly what you'd like to change, and you avoided all the points I raised above. There are several other issues with what you're saying.

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, as determined by independent, reliable sources. Regardless of your opinion of him, Swiderski's works cited here are two articles published by peer-reviewed scholarly journals in relevant fields, and a book published by an academic publishing house in India (New Era Publications). All of them easily pass Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, and so far as I can tell they've never been updated or challenged by subsequent scholars. On the other hand, a church's website is obviously not independent and can't be used to counter more reliable sources. It can't be used to challenge well sourced material such as Swiderski's works.

On a related note, Wikipedia is not censored. We don't excise or downplay reliably sourced, neutrally-worded material because some people don't like it. As such, Swiderski can't be removed on the grounds that you or others don't like what he has to say.

Third, despite what you claim, Swiderski (and this article) are clear that the North-South divide construction fell out of favor in the 20th century. That is presumably why you haven't heard of it. However, it's of serious historical importance as it was documented for hundreds of years.

Finally, as before, you're fooling no one and hurting your own case by claiming to be multiple unrelated people. Just drop it. And claiming that the Swiderski material is being "promoted by a relative of Swiderski or Swiderski himself" is laughable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Swiderski (and this article) are clear that the North-South divide construction fell out of favor in the 20th century. You are saying this is a construction. Checking the excised material also, shows no historical credibility and nothing seems documented as you claim - just doubts expressed by the author. I personally don't think Censoring is the issue raised by others, its about neutrality: when the author himself isn't sure about the facts and purports multiple origin stories without any solid evidence seems like fluff material. The material that you have sited is from 1988(http://www.newerapublicationschennai.com/Contents/Contents%20of%20Blood%20Weddings.pdf) Even today nearly anything could be published. So the publishing standards back then are kind of questionable as others have established the facts. Going through the edit history seems, its only you who supports this divisional theory and the way you initiate every talk is its your way or no way. Seeing that even if "promoted by a relative of Swiderski or Swiderski himself" is laughable, but the subtext is really funny-you have to accept that. Swiderski's material seems receiving high flak. I guess if you can find other verifiable sources on the matter, it would help a lot with the Northist-Southist divisional construct. Otherwise go with the history church gives. They simply cant pull a number over these many Knanites with a false history. If you are assuming they can be easily fooled and fighting hence. Then you are stating members of Syrian Christian community as unresponsive, non-critical, easily manipulated, non-educated...etc. This seems harmful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.254.145 (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, stop pretending to be multiple unrelated people. It's not furthering your position, it's just silly. I've already explained why Swiderski's works are reliable and usable by Wikipedia's standards. The article represents what he says accurately and neutrally. You are the only one advocating removing the material, and as it would be counter to Wikipedia's policies and mission, it's unpersuasive.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Southist -Northist- What is it? There was nothing like that, and why does this Cuchullain person is having all the free passes to steer history with falsified material. The article isn't about Southist-Northist division, is it to represent it in Knanaya Article. Cúchullain seems to counter his own convictions. Start a new page on this theory, leave the jawns from this space. It seems someone even precisely cut-out and put it under a heading. Cúchullain as a registered member can cut it and paste it as an other article, even if the article seems to be fabrication entwined with some truth. Move it, at-least in 2016. This is shameful even for other admin's who watch this and do nothing about it since 2012. Its a fair dispute resolution to move the Southist-Northist division theory entirely to a different page. Wow, for almost 5 years Cúchullain seems to have bullied his way through. Its just amazing.Happy new year to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.248.60.238 (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

Dear, Cúchullain

I also support what other community editors have pointed out. The Northist-Southist theory is a Fringe theory, that is only accepted within a minority who have read or supported richard m swiderski. Since nature of it is so widely disputed over the years and accused of misleading readers, I suggest you remove it or revert it to an edit where an editor collected all the juxtaposed content and kept it in separate heading. Otherwise this article is giving an undue weight. Reluctance to add other majority, solid traditional customs supported from the respected church website and from presentation of a digitized decades old video is also counterproductive. I hope you or other surveying editors will take appropriate measures towards this. 117.215.196.92 (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You've already said your piece (repeatedly), and I've already explained why your suggested changes are inappropriate. I've also explained that, you're not going to make any headway until you drop the charade that all your various IP accounts are multiple unrelated people. If you want to continue this discussion, register ONE account and respond to the various points I've already made. Until then, I'm done responding to you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

"Various traditions trace it back to the arrival of the Syrian merchant Thomas of Cana in the 4th or 8th century. Another legend traces their origin to Jews in the Middle East."

Shouldn't it he be Assyrian not Syrian? But then why would he be from Cana? There was no major Assyrian settlement that far west. How can they be both Assyrians and Jews? They are both two different distinct ethnic groups. Why would an Assyrian merchant lead a group of Jews to India? Furthermore, what port could they have sailed out of? The nearest ports would be on the Mediterranean and there would be no access to the Arabian Sea. AbdulAzizBadawi (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

AbdulAzizBadawi: The sources call him "Syrian". The article Thomas of Cana explains the background with him. It's possible he's mythical, or that the stories about him have changed considerably over time. It's not clear what the "Cana" in his name refers to. There were in fact Syrian Christians in India from an early date; they would have come overland.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Cuchullain: It does not make sense to describe him as Syrian since it is a modern nationality. Using stories to guess would just be speculation. Additionally, this article states that this group of people came by sea, not overland. From which port would they have sailed from?

"According to Chazhikaden, they originated in Judea, and later converted to Christianity, though they maintained their distinct culture and identity."

"Like other Saint Thomas Christians, Southist culture is largely derived from Syriac Christian culture mixed with local Indian customs, with later elements derived from Indian and European contacts."

Both of these statements contradict one another. They cannot possibly be both. AbdulAzizBadawi (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"Syrian" as an ethnicity or regional identity isn't modern; for instance the Roman Provincia Syria was established in the 1st century BC. In this context, "Assyrian" is just a conventional name largely meaning the same thing. In the context of Indian Christianity, "Syrian" is the preferred term, as the sources attest (as in "East Syrian" or "West Syrian" Christian rites). And again, Thomas of Cana is an obscure figure who may be mythical.

On the apparent contradiction, you're misreading the text. The reality is that the Knanaya have the same cultural origins as other St. Thomas Christians (ie, a mix of Syriac Christianity and indigenous Indian culture as well as later contributions). However, in the 1930s, Joseph Chazhikaden wrote a book that claimed the Knanaya actually descended from ancient Jews. The article is clear that while "Many Knanaya individuals and organizations accept the account as factual... Swiderski believes the legend was 'conceived and promulgated' by Chazhikaden himself. As with other Knanaya origin traditions, Northists dispute and condemn the story".--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

As a member of the church, I would explain the confusion as:-The forefather's of Knanaya's are considered as Syrian, in the sense someone who spoke Syriac and a Jew in the sense a Jew who has converted to Christianity. This is why both Syrian and Jewish descendancy is mentioned. Syriac in traditions (as in "East Syrian" or "West Syrian" Christian rites). Indian christians especially those origin from the south consider themselves as an intermix group of Jews, Indigenous Christians and high order Hindus. This is a fact that is sampled and accepted through genome research and by all churches of South Indian origin. I hope the Syrian and Jew confusion is cleared. Today, what makes Knanaya's different are our traditions, which is very diverse from other Syrian Christians. Though I wouldn't read much into the continuously slammed Southist and Northist Theory.(But it is fun to read and gain first hand knowledge on how to do such heinous things scrupulously.) Just read other concerns in the talk page, for future readers go with: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knanaya&oldid=693628604

Syriac speaking Jews? No. We speak Hebrew not Syriac. Syriac speakers are Assyrians. You are not Jews. You not follow halakha. You do not keep kosher or shomer shabbat. Just because you consider yourself to be Jews does not make you Jewish. Apply to be an Israeli citizen and you will be rejected. OmerMizrahi (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody said about being a Jew or readying to apply for citizenship. Jews who converted to Christianity that is the descendancy and Syrian in following rites.117.215.194.209 (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent

This article needs a re-write. Information obtained should be parallel with what the church's official page says.At least certain contested sources should be supported by era parallel sources. Removing contested issues and creating a short version of the article, would be more beneficial.117.248.62.220 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

117.248.62.220, from the details you have provided they look perfectly acceptable. @User:Cuchullain, If the views of these writer is controversial, just present them in a neutral way and clearly attribute them to the particular scholar - and avoid presenting them as if they are widely held if they aren't or that they represent some kind of definitive "truth". Also try to present all the significant views on Knanaya in a summary style (without giving minority views undue weight because you happen to like and magnify their arguments) and leave it to the reader to make any judgements they want to or Create a subarticle for the controversial part, if they are not WP:FRINGE.117.215.195.58 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

My comments above stand. Stop pretending to be different unrelated people and respond to the points I've made repeatedly, and we can talk. Until then, I'm done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed most of the problematic content. In case of anything missed, do remove it and Cuchullain stop drooling with WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Accept changes and move on with it. The content is too controversial to include, no grudges and reverts I hope. As 117.248.62.220 said otherwise discuss era parallel resources for controversial content in talk page and then include them after gaining consensus.117.215.198.22 (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

To repeat what I said when you tried this exact same thing last month, "My comments above stand. Stop pretending to be different unrelated people and respond to the points I've made repeatedly, and we can talk. Until then, I'm done."--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop removing well cited content. This is edit warring and POV-pushing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop supporting and vandalizing the page continuously with discredited sources that can invite edit-war when most of its theories are not considered valid. Also stop edit warring and go for discussion in any other matters related. If you find it important add controversial elements start a new article for it. The WP:NOTGETTINGIT requires to be popped, either pop it yourself or let it be there, but shouldn't disrupt articles with it.117.215.195.84 (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The only reason there's an edit war is because you are using a variety of IP addresses to excise well-cited material you dislike. It hasn't worked out for you in the past, and it's not going to work now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Still pushing with WP:NOTGETTINGIT Bill. Conflicting sources-A Big NO, that's all. Looking through the page its time for you to WP:LETGO and consider Wikipedia:It's not the End of the World, this is all in a friendly manner. You may gain blocks for your pov through certain admins, but that not a good practise.117.215.195.84 (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The page has been protected for a full year thanks to your disruption. I strongly suggest that you either try to hash out the problems here, or move on with your life. If you want to make changes, do the following:

• Register *one* account, and stop jumping around on IP addresses pretending to be multiple unrelated people. No one is fooled by your sock puppetry.
• Stop casting aspersions and making accusations about other editors. The one being disruptive here is you. You can stop that at any time.
• If you want to challenge the Swiderski sources, provide some sources of the same caliber that dispute his findings, if they exist. Then we can discuss how to include both viewpoints. Otherwise, it's a non-starter.
• If you want to add or change other material, provide sources that are reliable in this field that explicitly support the material. It is not acceptable to introduce uncited, poorly cited, or misrepresented material into the article, as virtually all of your edits have done.
• Watch your English.

If you do those relatively simple things, I'd be happy to work with you on improving the article. Otherwise, you'll continue to find yourself unable to work on the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Psthomas (talk · contribs · count), your disruptive socking has gone on for far too long. No new accounts, you are blocked from editing and shouldn't be doing so as an IP or under any other new user name. Given that, any and all your contributions, to articles, talk pages, user talk pages etc can be summarily removed. —SpacemanSpiff 17:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2017

I've twice reverted a series of poor changes that bear obvious similarities to the disruption this page has faced for years. These edits repeat the IP sockpuppetry; the pattern of excising/downplaying cited material the user doesn't like, especially Richard Swiderski; the poorly cited material; and the replacement of well written text with broken English. I made an offer before to work with this user if they stick to one registered account and bring their proposed changes to the talk page for vetting.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closing. This is not a serious move proposal, and was created by a sockpuppet IP. Cúchullain ^t/c 12:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Knanaya → Swiderski's Knanite Northist - Southist division theory – Aligns with the POV and with the undue weight of oriented sources in the article. 59.96.161.80 (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Suggested title doesn't appear to be WP:COMMONNAME. — Andy W. (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Andy M. Wang and 59.96.161.80: Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Changed per WP:COMMONNAME as per sources cited "Northists and Southists".59.92.31.93 (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: The above IP tried to change the target to Knanite Northist - Southist division theory (without "Swiderski's") after another user already responded to the suggestion. Since that seems improper, I reverted it. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

For better article presentation every suggestions are taken, I consider taking welcoming suggestions is a sign of good faith, I am not familiar with why its improper though learning the ropes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.21.159 (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2017‎ (UTC)

Changing a suggestion after someone else has already started discussing the suggestion causes a confusion of the historical record. That is why I think it is improper. If you want to make a new suggestion, just express it in a new comment. Don't change the record of what was previously said, if someone else already responded to that. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment. The page stands at Knanite Northist - Southist division theory via a cut-paste move after Emir of Wikipedia answered a subsequent RMT. I've requested a histmerge. — Andy W. (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As for the title, I have no context and knowledge about the subject, but if the new title is preferable somehow, then per MOS:DASH, it should probably be Knanite Northist–Southist division theory. — Andy W. (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Note regarding page move: Please see wp:moving a page The page needs to be moved, not cut/pasted. This is to preserve the wp:page history Cut/pasting will be undone per policy. Jim1138 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

To be precise, we have not yet decided whether the page needs to be moved or not. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The person who proposed the move did not provided a clear and comprehensible statement about what is suggested to be wrong with the current title and better about the proposed one. If I understand correctly, the nominator is suggesting that something in the article is incorrect or exhibits some form of bias. The article is about a socio-ethnic group of about 300,000 people known as the Knanaya. Is there a dispute about whether this group of people exists and is notable? They do appear to exist, and some of them have published a Knanaya history page. If there is no dispute about that, then is the question about the article name or is it a dispute about the article content? —BarrelProof (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Restore to full name Knanaya Christians as WP:NATURAL. "Knanaya" is Wikipediaese (gibberish) not found in reliable sources without the noun "...Christian" after the adjective "Knanaya...". per Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twenty-First Century 2014 "Included in these numbers are approximately 150,000 Knanaya or Southist Christians, claiming to be descendants of fourth-century Syrian migrant merchants. Another around 100,000 Knanaya Christians belong to the Jacobite Church." There are two groups of which the Southist are only one. Yes there are all kinds of self identifying legends going on in this area, but at least Knanaya Christians is a recognizable title. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I have closed the above RM discussion as it was made by socks of Psthomas, who has been disrupting this article for years. On its merits it fails; this article isn't about the split, it's about the community itself, and "Knanaya" is unarguably the title used by the community and reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

the song Maranarul and the sefer yetzirah

this song seems a lot like the sefer yetzirah Brandon johnson (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparent Heavy Bias

Hi my name is Thomas, I study anthropology and am a Social Studies teacher in profession and I am also a Knanaya. I have much love for my community and my Syro Malabar Church along with Eastern Catholicism and its many facets. I post regularly on the Catholic Answers Forums about the Syro Malabar Church, St. Thomas Christians, and Knanaya among numerous other things.

To get a gist of my work, this is a link to my Catholic Answers Forums Page: https://forums.catholic.com/u/thomas48/summary

In the past I edited this page once and added the Knanaya folk song which Richard Swaderski studied, "Maran Arul" or by the Lords Command. Since then I have watched this page go to and fro, I am assuming between those who have opposing views on the history of the Knanaya Community. One thing that bothers me tho, is that there has always seemed to be much bias against this community in this page. I have noticed most recently someone added that the Knanaya were known as Charamkettikal, to those who do not understand Malayalam Charamkettikal means (Ash Tiers) and it was a derogatory and offensive term used by the Northist Christians (all other St. Thomas Christians besides Knanaya) to mock the Southist (Knanaya). Now if you had a page on African Americans, you would not write African Americans also known as (N word) or a page on Hispanics would not open with: Hispanics also known as "beaners". So if you would not add those offensive titles to the pages on African Americans and Hispanics, why would the moderator allow an offensive and derogatory title on the Knanaya page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

October 5 2017 Edit Knanaya and Cochin Jew Correlation

Hi I recently made an edit, in which I added more to the Knanaya culture section by stating the relevant correlations between the folk songs and traditions of the Cochin Jews and Knanaya. This study was done by the late Dr. P.M Jussay and Cochin Jew himself who found and wrote about the symmetry of both communities. I added his source citation and his the exact page numbers. Why was this deleted? Why do I feel like anything that is unbiased toward my people is deleted. This was a true study done by a third party (not Southist or Northist) and he was also a revered scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the material because large parts of it weren't cited, or were insufficiently cited. The citation you provided from Jussay was incomplete and I couldn't find any proof that it is real. Can you provide a link or a full citation so I can find the source? If the source is legit we can work some of that material back in. But we don't need to include lyrics to the songs, and there were some style errors in your additions. All of that is fixable if the source is legit.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I provided the citation in the references. I even added the ISBN number of the text. It is called The Jews of Kerala by Dr. P.M Jussay. The ISBN number should be enough to find this text. However it is not available online. I do however have pictures of the pages with this information, tho I'm not sure how I could share that with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thomast48: Your edits did not provide an ISBN number, and I can't find the work with just the info you've given. Is it a book or an article? If it's an article I'll need the name of the publication.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that did not post, I made sure to add this in the references but okay here is here is the ISBN: 817748091X . It is a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've found it now. It does seem to be a reliable source. We can start adding some of your material back in, though it's not necessary to include song lyrics, and we need to make sure it's (reasonably) free of style errors.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, is it okay if I keep the lyrics or atleast some of them? I'm an educator by profession and I find it important to show proof and have examples. This makes it easier for people to comprehend the topic at hand. If anything Wikipedia educates its readers on certain content and the lyrics are an important part of this content. Also in my last edit I changed the titles of the "Origins and Traditions" section to simply "Origins" and the "Religous Traditions" title to "Religious Affiliations". I think this or some other title that doesn't include "tradtions" would make sense. In my opinion when readers think of traditions, they would think of the physical religious and folk traditions of the Knanaya Community, i.e the numerous ceremonies that take place during weddings. However both these sections do not mention any tradtions. I think it would be more prudent if the origins section had a title more like "Folk Origins" and the "Religious Traditions" section to have a title more like "Religious Affiliation" or something that has to do with denomination instead of including the word tradtition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

We can include a few quotes of the lyrics, but Wikipedia articles don't generally include lyrics per WP:NOTLYRICS. If you like you can add them to Wikisource and then we can include a link at the bottom.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I have made my edit, feel free to change it where style issues and other issues persist. It should also be noted that the quoted lyrics are not the entire song but only small portions of each song used as examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Names Section

Hi I removed the quoted section "However, scholar Richard M. Swiderski states that none of these etymologies are convincing" but it was readded. This is clearly degrading to the Knanaya Community. If you are going to write in a Wikipedia article that what a community calls itself is unwarranted or false, you remove credibility in general from that community. This is bias material to include. Thomast48 (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I re-added it because it is cited to a high-quality source and seems obvious. Swiderski is only saying that it isn't clear what the name refers to Cana, Canaan, the term for merchant, or whatever. I doubt even Knanaya scholars all agree on the etymology.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Wedding customs page numbers

Thomast48, I've reworked your new addition on wedding customs a bit to convert it to prose and condense it, as it was quite long for what it is. If you can, please go through the section and add the specific page numbers for each passage (currently, a 13-page span is cited for each and every detail, which isn't kosher). If you need help, let me know.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added the exact page numbers and added some slight edits hope this helps Thomast48 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks!--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

Please restore the page to the edit with the cited materials. Much of the culture section and other cited works were removed by the anonymous author on Jan 26, 2018 and since that date. Thomast48 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018 edits

I have again reverted these edits which excise cited material, introduce style errors, and in general depreciate the quality of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have already explained why these changes are unacceptable, many times over the past several years. Please revert yourself now or the article will have to be edit protected.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong accusations no cited material is excised. If anything reverts removed citation. Kindly check from your side. However, I agree with style errors. - Only because reverts are done even before the edit is reviewed. Explain "why these changes are unacceptable, many times over the past several" or cite them. However if this is a personal point of view kindly deter from it or protect the page to keep a preferred version, if it is possible in Wikipedia.

This edit surreptitiously removed references to the Knanaya being part of the St. Thomas Christian community, which is cited, and introduced style errors such as "an figure" and the unintelligible phrase "Alternatively this colonial terms in local history mean as new division and older division." You removed cited material in the Food and Dress and ornaments section. This is not an improvement; as the one introducing new material that has been challenged, the burden of evidence is on you to defend it. If you do not revert your changes, the article will have to be protected from editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me review it. Since you seem to know a lot about this and have a history. Give me some time and let us work together.

How does it look now change Saint Thomas Christians=> Indian Saint Thomas Christians (As per wiki). Thank you for notifying me on that and other style errors. I do not agree with you on significance of lines removes like: "favored by the Knanaya but consumed by the entire Kerala community" and "These foods are regularly made in the homes of the Knanaya and are offered during meals and tea times". Illogical observations like the diameter of earrings is the cause for division only attracts ridicule. Then on plus side my edit also removed minor native L1 errors. But if you really feel like your community like Knanaya food and it is significant to your religion, you may add them back.167.160.123.22 (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is Churuttu - is it something like a Samosa.167.160.123.22 (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"they derived their own conclusion....put forward plausible explanations" - a paraphrase of this from the source is needed in your cleanup plus revert or try to rephrase "traces of the mixing of Hindu and Christian cultures" - seems jumbled.167.160.123.22 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Chazikadan

Restored the information about Chazhikaden. This has been previously discussed here. Swiderski is a high quality source for this subject, and the interpretation is clearly attributed to him. If there's an alternate claim from a scholar of a similar caliber, we can include that as well, but there's no call to remove Swiderski.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Page numbers required

Thomast48: Can you please provide direct page number citations for the "Folk songs" and "Folk traditions" sections? Once you're done I'll clean them up a bit. I don't think we need more than one example for each section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've added the exact page numbers, I would ask tho that at least two of the correlated songs in the folk songs section are kept. Knanaya folk songs are truly what distinguish the community. The songs Ponnainjeedum and Vazhvenna Vazhu are the most similar and best examples. Also everything that the anonymous user added is not from the sources I have provided. They have simply added onto my original work and claimed their additions are from the source cited. I own both the texts I used to write parts of this article, I can provide images if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2300:79A0:D0D5:EB4C:42A6:C5E (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have also reverted much of material added by the anonymous user. If you need any more help, please let me know. I apologize for not signing in, hopefully you can tell by my IP Address.

At some point I'm going to combine the two sections on songs into one and remove most of the lyrics. They currently make the sections far too long compared to the historical and analytical info that should be the focus here, per WP:NOTLYRICS, WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE. If you'd like, fuller lyrics can be added to Wikiquote or Wikisource, and we can link to it here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Folk History

Is it possible that we can restore the folk history section I had written. Every text on Knanaya history from Vellian, Karukaparambil, Swiderski and Jussay attest the same history and these are four scholars that are revered on this topic, especially Dr. Jacob Vellian who is perhaps the number one source on the Knanaya. The Kottayam Archdiocese as well as KCCNA (Knanaya Catholic Congress of North America) all attest this same history as well. Yes I agree that the Origins and Traditions section states part of this but this should really be apart of the history section and appropriately named folk history. I agree it is important to include input from what Northist Christians believe, it is never right to exhibit a one sided history and this is beyond well established in the origins and traditions section but this page is called Knanaya yes? So for that reason there should be a section that states the history based on this peoples beliefs. The numerous sources that I have provided as well as many others that can be found state this version of the folk history that I had included. I implore you to please re include the folk history section for the reason that this is indeed a page named "Knanaya" and because of this should include a history based on the peoples beliefs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs)

Hi Thomast48. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildas (~~~~). I don't think that section is encyclopedic - I haven't seen any other articles on ethnic groups that include a section on their "folk history". However, most of the material is already covered in a more contextual fashion in the "Origins and traditions" section. That section makes it clear there is more than one "folk history" that Knanaya have subscribed to. The material on Thomas of Cana, the East Syrians and Church of the East is all there already (and it doesn't need the level of detail about the name of the bishop and the makeup of the supposed party). The stuff about being welcomed by Cheraman Perumal and the copper plates are there now. However, I rewrote it to make clear that the Knanaya aren't the only St. Thomas Christians who invoke the plates. There are other problems as well. The citation format isn't consistent with all the other citations. That was especially a problem with Swiderski, who had 3 cited publications all from the same year. We need to include the title (I assume you were referring to Blood Weddings). But it's a problem with all of them as it's impossible to tell which source backs up which claim. Swiderski doesn't appear to talk about any of that on the page you cited (again, assuming you're referring to Blood Weddings. It's possible we could work some more of the "folk history" into the origins and traditions section, though it's fairly substantial for an encyclopedia section as it is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A few examples I think could be worked in, if you can give direct citations for them, include that 345 is the most common year given for Thomas of Cana's arrival, and that it is said that Thomas of Cana's followers settled on the south side of Cranganor while the the indigenous Christians lived to the north. Also, reading Swiderski again, we need evidence that the story of the copper plates predates Chazhikaden. It's already mentioned in the paragraph on Chazhikaden's story of Jewish descent, and Swiderski is clear on what he thinks of it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The Swiderski text in which I was referring to was not Blood Weddings but "Oral Text: A South Indian Instance" which states: "These songs are best known by the members of a Syrian Christian sub-group called the Knanaya. These people claim to have originated in a Syrian religious and trade mission led by Knayi Thommen (Thomas of Cana) which arrived in Kerala in 345 A.D. The Knanaya maintain that they have obeyed the original instructions of the Patriarch of Antioch and have preserved the pure “blood” and culture of their native land."(Swiderski, 124)

Tho Swiderski does not state the part about Cheruman Perumal and the copper plate grant, he does include the general history believed by the Knanaya. This same format is followed by Jussay, who mentions more about Knanaya Judeo-Christian origin (since his text is a cross-cultural study between Judaic custom and Knanaya custom) and also mentioning Cheruman Perumal and the copper plate grant. Vellian and Kurukaparmbil state the same history following the same format and stating the 345 narrative and that the Knanaya are Syrian Judeo-Christian immigrants under Thomas of Cana, these two texts have the inclusion of Cheruman Perumal and the copper plate grant. This same format and version of history is followed by the Kottayam Archdiocese website and the KCCNA website as well. Perhaps if not not titled folk history, perhaps this should be under the section simply titled history. None of these valued sources mention the two wive theory, which many believe simply to be tales and fiction. Also if you check the St. Thomas Christians Wikipedia article, there is not a single mention of the St. Thomas Christians claiming descent from Thomas of Cana (either from the 345 narrative or the two-wive theory), the page even states:

"An organised Christian presence in India dates to the arrival of East Syriac settlers and missionaries from Persia, members of what would become the Church of the East, in around the 3rd century.[37] Saint Thomas Christians trace the further growth of their community to the arrival of Christians from the Middle East led by Thomas of Cana, which is said to have occurred either in the 4th or 8th century. The subgroup of the Saint Thomas Christians known as the Knanaya or Southists trace their lineage to Thomas of Cana, while the group known as the Northists claim descent from the early Christians evangelized by Thomas the Apostle"

These are the two sources provided by the St. Thomas Christians page for the above quote that seem to state again the same history of the Knanaya:

Baum, Wilhelm; Dietmar W. Winkler (2003). The Church of the East: A Concise History. Routledge. p. 52. ISBN 0-415-29770-2. Retrieved 6 February 2012. Swiderski, Richard Michael (1988). "Northists and Southists: A Folklore of Kerala Christians". Asian Folklore Studies. Nanzan University. 47 (1): 76–80, 80–83. doi:10.2307/1178253. JSTOR 1178253

I think this is a pretty over-whelming amount of sources that state and believe Knanaya history to be the 345 narrative and nothing else. What many do not know about Chazikadans work is that it does not change the 345 narrative it simply adds to it. Chazikadan does not alter the traditional history of the 345 narrative, he simply believes that apart from being Syrian Christians who immigrated to India the Knanaya were also Early Christians converts to Syrian Christianity or Judeo-Christians. His text continues on with this in which he tries to incorporate the Knanaya into ancient history (this is where Swiderski does not agree with Chazikadan) because Chazikadan rambles on about the Knanaya being ancient Jews descending from the original tribes them self, however again besides this he does not change the fact that he also believe they came with Thomas of Cana to India in 345 and settled on the Southern side of Cranganore etc.

As can be seen from the great amount of sources I have provided that include two Swiderski texts, Vellian, Jussay, Kurukaparmbil, Baum, and even Chazikadan to an extent, I think it is very appropriate to include under the history section the 345 narrative. None of the sources provided state the two-wives theory and it seems even the St. Thomas Christians (from their history stated in the article) believe the Knanaya to follow the 345 narrative. Perhaps a better way to incorporate this would be to move the Origins and Traditions section under the history section, as is done of the St. Thomas Christians page. From that point, perhaps we can include more of the 345 narrative and its importance as the version of history followed by the Knanaya.

Direct Quotes:

"Tradition of the Knanaya both Catholic and Non-Catholic holds that a group Christians from the Middle East came into Cranganore, South India, in the year A.D 345 under the leadership of Thomas of Cana, a merchant from the anceint city of Qinai (Kinai). Though some have suggested a later date (8th Century) for the immigration, the tradition of the community and the "Ancient songs of the St. Thomas Christians" converge to A.D 345. Whatever be the date, the traditions of ancient Christianity acknowledges an immigration of a group from Southern Mesopotamia with a bishop called Joseph, priests and deacons, and a group of laymen from 7 stocks and 72 families comprising about 400 persons. It is beleived that they came to India in accordance with the direction of the Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctsesiphon (known as Sahados) to give an impetus to the India Church in decline at that time.The colony under the leadership of Thomas of Cana settled down on the south side of the city of Cranganore where they landed, and they were called Southist (Thekkumbhagar) while the local Mar Thoma Christians who lived on the north side of the city were called Northist (Vadakkumbhagar)." (Vellian, 26).

"There is a living tradition in Kerala, generally accepted by historians, that in A.D 345 seventy-two Christian families of Mesopotamia immigrated into India and settled in Cranganore, and that the so called Southists (Thekkumbhagar) or Knanayar among the Christians of St. Thomas trace back their origins to those immigrants. This immigration was led by Thomas Kinai." (Karukaparmbil, 166)

"According to their tradition seventy two families under the leadership of a wealthy Syrian merchant by the name of Thomas of Cana migrated to India and settled down as Cranganore during the early centuries of the Christian era... To distinguish between the two groups of Judeo-Christians, those who resided at Pulloot on the northern side, were known as Vadakkumbhagar (Northists) while those who came later and settled on the southern side of the palace were known as Thekkumbhagar (Southists). (Jussay, 118-126)

"These songs are best known by the members of a Syrian Christian sub-group called the Knanaya. These people claim to have originated in a Syrian religious and trade mission led by Knayi Thommen (Thomas of Cana) which arrived in Kerala in 345 A.D. The Knanaya maintain that they have obeyed the original instructions of the Patriarch of Antioch and have preserved the pure “blood” and culture of their native land."(Swiderski, Oral Text: A South Indian Instance, pg 124)

"An organised Christian presence in India dates to the arrival of East Syriac settlers and missionaries from Persia, members of what would become the Church of the East, in around the 3rd century.[37] Saint Thomas Christians trace the further growth of their community to the arrival of Christians from the Middle East led by Thomas of Cana, which is said to have occurred either in the 4th or 8th century. The subgroup of the Saint Thomas Christians known as the Knanaya or Southists trace their lineage to Thomas of Cana, while the group known as the Northists claim descent from the early Christians evangelized by Thomas the Apostle" (Swiderski, Northist and Southist: A folklore of Kerala Christians, pgs 76–80, 80–83) and (Baum, The Church of the East: A Concise History, pg 52).

"In this Report on the Serra, Bishop Roz also gives an account of the translation of the Olla which the said Xeram Perumal gave to Thomas Cananeo. According to him ( interpretation of the olla ?) , the Xeram (Xoran) Perumal reigning at the time of Mercury of February, on the 7th day of March before the full moon, the same king residing in Carnelur (?), there arrived in a ship Thomas of Cana, a chief man, determined to see the surroundings of the East. The king being informed of it, went out to meet him. Thomas disembarked and stood before the king who spoke to him friendly and imposed on him the surname of Coquarangon Cananeo, after the king’s own name.

Thomas accepted this honor and went to settle down himself in his place. The king gave him for ever the town of Magoder Patanam. Afterwards the king assigned to the new-corner a place covered with brushwood marking its boundaries and asked him to build a town there. Thomas wanted the place for himself and the king granted it to him. Thomas built there a church and his own house; the corner stone of both were laid by the king himself. The whole place was converted into a town which was given by the king to Thomas as an inheritance. On an opportune day the church was inaugurated and the said Thomas entered the church and made his prayers.

Sometime after, Thomas went to the king and offered him presents and formally asked the king to give him and to his descendants the said land. The king accordingly measured 264 eIls with an elephant and gave it to Thomas and his descendants, together with 62 houses which they had built in that place, with gardens and trees, with the circuits and ways and boundaries and the interior pathways. Roz continues to describe the privileges and rights the king gave him." (Bishop Francis Roz Report- British Museum Manuscript BS Add MS 9853 titled “Report from Serra ( 1603/1604)” – Relacao da Serra – by the first latin prelate of Angamali.)

The Bishop Francis Roz quote was taken from the scholarly NCS Network which has documented the entire Thomas of Cana narrative and history of the Southist based on the few available Portuguese and European documents (which in my opinion are simply perspective pieces depending on whom the Europeans asked to relay the history (Northist or Southist) . It is clear however that the Thomas of Cana copperplate grant was in existence ever before Chazikadans mention of it. Tho I know you quoted Swiderski in stating that this copper plate grant was also propagated by the Northist, I have never seen any scholarly work that states the Northist also claim the Thomas of Cana plate, do you have a link to that particular peice of Swiderskis work? In what work I have seen available about the Thomas of Cana copper plate, Norithist seem to negate the plate claiming that it is a forgery of their copper plate grant the "Tharisapalli plates'. In my past readings many Northist also state the Thomas of Cana copper plate is fiction and never existed, this follows the traditional rhetoric of trying to negate the Southist. Thomast48 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, we don't need a separate section on folk history - we essentially already have one in the "Origins and traditions" section, and it includes all the "folk history" that the sources describe. However, it does appear that, based on your sources above, that we can emphasize that the Thomas of Cana story is the most commonly invoked one and add some other key information. I'll get to work on that shortly. Thanks for providing the quotes, I don't have access to all those sources, and we need to make sure we get them right.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If you have a copy or link or resource to find Swiderski's Blood Weddings Text, could you please share it with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Oxford Journal

Here is a direct quote:

"In time, Jewish Christians of the most exclusive communities descended from settlers who accompanied Knayil Thomma (Kana ̄yi) became known as ‘Southists’ (Tekkumbha ̄gar). With their claims to royal descent and purer blood, traced back to King David, they more carefully preserved their own lineages and more strictly avoided ritual pollution. They distinguished between themselves and ‘Northists’ (Vatakkumbha ̄gar). The ‘Northists’, on the other hand, claimed direct descent from the very oldest Christians of the country, those who had been won to Christ by the Apostle Thomas himself.They had already long inhabited northern parts of Kodungallur. They had been there even before various waves of newcomers had arrived from the Babylonian or Mesopotamian provinces of Sassanian Persia. ConXicts be-tween these two endogamous wings of the Thomas Christian community, on matters both small and large, became chronic. Nevertheless, both groupsconstructed churches in close proximity to each other in such places as Kaduthuruthi and Kottayam.43"

Is this not clear evidence of the Knanaya being descendants of Thomas of Cana and the Northists of St. Thomas? The journal even mentions the Northists claiming descent from St. Thomas and not Thomas of Cana. Why make the Knanaya article into a comparison page when even the main St. Thomas Christian wiki article states the following:

"An organised Christian presence in India dates to the arrival of East Syriac settlers and missionaries from Persia, members of what would become the Church of the East, in around the 3rd century.[36] Saint Thomas Christians trace the further growth of their community to the arrival of Christians from the Middle East led by Thomas of Cana, which is said to have occurred either in the 4th or 8th century. The subgroup of the Saint Thomas Christians known as the Knanaya or Southists trace their lineage to Thomas of Cana, while the group known as the Northists claim descent from the early Christians evangelized by Thomas the Apostle."

The St. Thomas Christians page itself mentions nothing about Northist Christians claiming descent from Thomas of Cana, the Oxford journal reiterates the same.

Heres another direct quote from the Oxford Journal which states that Thomas party settled on the South side: (Page, 108)

That Thomas was cordially welcomed by the Emperor of Kerala, the Cheraman Perumal, and that the new community received special grants

and privileges that were formally certiWed and engraved on copper plates, specifying exactly what tracts of land were to be occupied by the Christian settlers and what prerogatives of status they were to enjoy, seem beyond doubt. The copper plates themselves, as title deeds, documented the pres-ence of these highly cultivated and gifted newcomers.

They were allotted lands by ‘extending ells measured by an elephant, each being equal to the length of ten palms’. The newly occupied lands were very similar to the

alluvial black soil and marshy Welds that had been left behind in Uruk (Uruha). These lands were located in the delta of the Periya River, not farfrom the Chemkal estuary on one side or from the city of Kodungallur (Kurumaklur, Cranganore, which was the same as Muziris of ancient times)on the other. In later times, the settlers would move southward, settling on lands bordering black paddy Welds east of the Vembanadam backwater lagoons. The places of settlement—Udayamperur, Kottayam, Kaduthuruthy, and Kallissery, as also Brahmangalam (Karippadam), Kallara, Neendur, Kaipuzha, Mannar, Kuttoor, and Veliyanad—are places in the region wherethe majority of ‘Southists’ can still be found. Privileges enjoyed by the Christian immigrants alone included wearing of golden Xowers in their hair during weddings, riding on royal elephants or palanquins, use of royal parasols, playing seven kinds of musical instruments, sitting upon carpets, erecting pavilions (pandals), use of sandalwood paste, and even allowing their women to whistle with a Wnger in the mouth as was done by other royal women. Such privileges were allowed only to those who weredescended from kings: these Jewish Christians claimed direct descent from the lineage of David"

In this quote from the journal, the authors are reinstating that the Southists are the descendants of Thomas of Cana and that they still live on the lands originally settled. Even the areas that they mention such as Udayamperoor, Kottayam, etc are the spots of the historical churches of the Knanaya.

22:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs)

Frykenberg is inconsistent in how he describes it. The first sentence does say that the Southists "descended from settlers who accompanied Knayil Thomma", but the second talks about their "claims". At any rate, while this is a very good source, it can't be used to replace the other sources, especially those that are actually about the Knanaya specifically, rather than a general history of Christians in India. Your edit removed a large quantity of very well sourced material from multiple different reliable authors. Swiderski explicitly says it's a legend and there are other versions (including versions by the Northists). He's not the only one who says that. Coward touches on it, as do sources not currently used here like CJ Fullers' "Kerala Christians and the Caste System", Jacob Kollaparambil's "The Babylonian origin of the Southists among the St. Thomas Christians", and, if I recall correctly, Shalva Weil's Symmetry between "Christians and Jews in India". It's important for Wikipedia not to take sides but to present all the options as the reliable sources do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I see, so I can add from the journal but I’d have to keep all sides of the argument. That’s fair. Thomast48 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct. The source itself is a really good one. I'm sure we'll be able to use other items from it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Term Thomas of Cana

The epithet Cana given to Thomas is completely debunked in Jacob Kollaparambils text "The Babylonian Origin of Southist among the St. Thomas Christians" which was published by the Ponitfical Oriental Institute . It clearly does not match to the term given in Malabar Christian folk lore which is Kinayi and its variants. I have added Kollaparambils work but is it noteworthy to mention Swiderski and his definitions of the epithet if "Cana" seems to be completely an invention of European Colonists and not of the local tradition? I wanted to ask your input on removing Swiderskis defintion of the term Cana since it does not seem to match the traditions of the people at all. Thomast48 (talk) @Cuchullain:

We should not remove either Swiderski or Neill, they're just giving some of the most commonly cited etymologies, which is important (Swiderski even says they etymologies don't hold up). Kollaparambil's take is also fine to include, though we'll have to reword it to be WP:NEUTRAL and give it appropriate WP:DUEWEIGHT. We also don't need a block quote there - we can just summarize what he says. I'll take a stab at it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. We'll need more specific page numbers for the two claims (I can't find anything about the Christian community of Kynai in the book).--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. We still need more specific pages for the first cite, unless it's really covered across 20 pages of text.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 Major Edit

I don’t under the purpose of this new edit. The entire article that has been worked on with the efforts of many has been completely subverted. I especially do not understand the “re-origins” section. That seems to imply that the Portuguese observations are more important than the traditions of the communities themselves. Also why is the dna study under the origins section? The edit has also completely removed numerous cultural references and expansions. Thomast48 (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Each edit is accompanied by an edit summary. Most of them are directed either at grammatical weaknesses, weaknesses of expression or repetition. Those of most substance are removal of excessive detail from a very long, overburdened article. Multiple reproduction of songs, etc., are not suited to an encyclopaedic account of the subject. The amount of work people do on WP is not a factor in determining whether the material should be published; many other factors, however, must be considered. sirlanz 13:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Many of these changes are improvements, but some are not. I don’t think all the restructuring has been beneficial, for instance. There are also a few cases of unclear wording and passive voice, and changing the citation format is not an improvement. However, it is good in trimming unnecessary detail, which has been a problem here for some time. Next week I’ll give it another run through.—Cúchullain ^t/c 14:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I've gone back through the article. I've maintained most of Sirlanz's removals of unnecessary text and various wording changes, but I restored the article's original structure and a few passages that were better before. As I've said before, this article is not the place for the text of songs, especially in other languages - Wikisource is the better place for those. I also made a number of edits to text I hadn't gotten to before. Notably, I removed the discussion of the DNA test, as the source given was to a YouTube video by Tobin Thomas, which is a self-published source, and therefore not usable here. If the source ever gets published by a journal, we can re-add the material. I also reworded and trimmed the explanations of some of the "traditions" sections.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The new edit is fair but in the examples of Hindu and Christian cultures mixing in folk songs, I would use the previous song given "Maran Arul" as a reference instead of Mailanji Pattu. Mailanji Pattu (Songs of the Mylanchi Ceremony) does not refer to one song but a large set of songs sung during the mylanchi ceremony that all have different influences for example some being Hindu and others being Judaic. Also of the examples of Cochin Jewish and Knanaya folk songs I would use the song that was given earlier "Ponnanijeedum" or "He Comes in Gold Decorated Palanquin". Jussay mentions that this Cochini song shared the most resemblance to Knanaya folk songs. The Kulli Pattu or Bath Song on the other hand that is being used right now only shares two lines in common for both cultures. Also in the history section the only reference given to origins traditions is of the two-wives concept. Do Couto on the other hand, who was the official historian of Portuguese India states that the Knanaya came to India as merchants with Thomas of Cana and brought with them their wives, a clear reference to the Knanaya version of the history. Thomast48 —Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Mailanjipattu is the song discussed in the cited text, which describes it as an individual song, "the second song in Lukose’s collection". This is the song Swiderski is talking about as a Christian adaptation of a Hindu work. The song starts with the term "māŕānarul" but it does not say this is the song's title, nor does it discuss another song of that name, so the previous material can't be included. We can mention "He Comes in Gold Decorated Palanquin," but it would be better to cite what Jussay actually says about it than to just list lyrics (to that or any song). I don't understand your comment about Do Couto. The text says the later writers mention the divide, "generally referencing versions of the Thomas of Cana story", which De Couto and the others do. We don't need to get into analysis of what specific version each of them references.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The direct translation of "Mylanchi Pattu" is (Song of Mylanchi), there are many songs of Mylanchi not just Maran Arul, that is why I think it's more important to use the name of the song and not the celebration its accompanied with. The Knanaya title that specific song "Maran Arul", heres a link to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3E4WQvXvvw . When simply saying Mylanchi Pattu, it makes it seems as if all they Mylanchi songs are correlated with the Hindu song mentioned, instead perhaps we can write "the Mylanchi Pattu "Maran Arul" is correlated with Krishnagatha". As for Ponaninjeedum, I'll try to get more information about what Jussay writes about it. My argument for adding Do Couto's work is for the reason that the history section mentions two Portuguese writers Monserratte and Campori who both report about the Two-Wives concept however their isn't a single source that mentions the migration concept. Instead of mentioning both Monserrate and Campori on the Two-Wives concept, you should instead move one of them into the bulk writers given at the end of the statement and instead exchange in Do Couto who writes in depth about the Knanaya migration concept. By doing so you'll give equal representation and mention both traditions instead of just one in the history section. The current format of the history section with only direct mentions of the Two-Wives concept makes it seem as if their is no historical mention to the migration, which is of course no true. Also I wanted to mention if we can add in direct Portuguese citations of Thomas of Cana followers (I use the term "followers" since it seems using only Knanaya would be bias) township within the Chera Capital city of Cranganore. Some Portuguese writers state that Thomas of Cana followers had a township within Cranganore, 72 houses, and three churches. Thomast48

Re Mailanjipattu, that's the name used for the song cited in the source, so there's nothing we can change about it. We can't claim the source says something it doesn't say.

Re "He Comes in Gold Decorated Palanquin," that's fine. I don't have access to Jussay. If you provide a quote to what he says about it on the talk page, I can write something up.

Re the Portuguese authors, Monserrate is there because he was the first to mention the two wives, and Swiderski discusses this as important. Campori is there because Swiderski spends a great deal of time on his letter. I've moved down Ros as it's not really important. Swiderski doesn't mention Do Couto, and we don't need to get into every writer who mentioned the divide.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I added a line on Do Couto based on a brief line from Vellian. Hopefully that's sufficient.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The new edit and formatting looks great. However should the article include that Portuguese writers mention Thomas of Cana and his followers had their own township within Cranganore with three churches and 72 houses. I beleive both Do Couto, Ros, and a few others mention this (I need to check who states it again). I beleive the Portuguese even state that they now have the Church in Cranganore that Thomas of Cana built. Thomast48 —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Great! I don't think we should cite anything directly to the Portuguese letters, as they're WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. If the other sources discuss those items and consider them important, we can work it in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

What’s the purpose of removing Bar Mariam? The Vellian text clearly states it’s a distinct song of the Knanaya Christians that refers to wedding ceremonies, such as that of Cana. There are many different versions of Bar Mariam. It is distinct from other Knanaya folk songs and should have its own section as it was labeled before. You can’t pick one source as being more valuable then the other, Palackal might state one thing but Vellian is a Knanaya that has been studying and singing this chant for decades. The first time Palackal even heard the chant was from Vellian and his choir. Also P.U. Luke the first to ever write about the chant states “The song refences Christ raising marriage into the status of a sacrament”. Luke’s text being the first, should have pre-dominance over any others. Also Bar Mariam is literally the only Syriac chant that the Knanaya community claims as its own and for that reason should have its own section and mention, as it was before.

Also what is the purpose of removing all of these images that are relevant to the community and the sections they were apart of? Other pages, in example the Yemenite Jewish wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemenite_Jews goes so in depth into almost every category of the community. What is the purpose behind trimming the Knanaya page down to almost the barebones status it was before I started to edit it? Why does it seem like the Knanaya page is given an extra level of scrutiny when compared to other pages of ethnic communities? I give you so much information about the community but later is it is considered unnecessary, wheras similar information on other pages seems completely fine. Thomast48

The Bar Mariam material was redundant with the coverage already in the wedding section. That seems like a better place for it as it seems to be best known as a wedding chant. We don't need a separate section for a few sentences on one song. I don't have access to that source by Vellian or to Luke (which is pretty old at this point), but the encyclopedia source does not verify all that information. If Vellian does contain more information we can add more, but I'd like to know what it says first, because the previous version attributed to the encyclopedia article information that's not actually included. Namely, it's used to claim that the song contains references to the Wedding of Cana, while the source actually says it has no references to weddings.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I readded Bar Mariam because Luke states that their are specific traditions that surround it during Epiphany and Christmas which should be better defined in its own section. The same can be also be seen in Palackal.Thomast48 —Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to revert most of that, because it adds little of relevance beyond what's covered in the wedding section. History of the Bar Mariam and its use by the Chaldeans may be useful for the Bar Mariam article, but it's too much detail for a general overview of the Knanaya. Material on Knanaya traditions of the epiphany that do not involve the Bar Mariam is obviously not relevant. There's also a lot of patchy wording and spelling. I don't understand the use of the "Knanites" spelling; are these passages taken strait from the source?

On another note, please follow the capitalization guidelines in headers and images. Wikipedia does not capitalize after the first word or in proper nouns. I also disagree that the low-quality photograph of a crown is a better image than the church, although there appears to be a general lack of quality images on this subject on Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Status edits

This addition is highly problematic, so I have removed it. It has a number of problems including plagiarism, bad writing, and improper citation formatting. Some of the sources (Hough, Menon, and probably Ayyar) are so out of date as to be useless here. Additionally, Fryckenberg and Fuller give so little information on the status of the Knanaya that it would appear to be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to include it here. Fryckenberg does include the line plagiarized here, that "Southists, in particular, if not other Thomas Christians, shared a world of common culture and inhabited a common space with other high-born peoples." However, his main point is that Thomas Christians don't all come from the same background or caste, and so don't all have the same status. Fuller also only passingly mentions that the Northists were "ranked below" the Southists, but goes on to say that he did not speak to any Southists, and that the Northists he did talk to weren't even aware of the division! This is not something we can build an article section on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources dating from 1604 to 2008 have been given. The same is to show that the higher caste status has been obtained not over a fortnight but were enjoyed historically. Hence the old mentions and sources ( J Hough , Iyyer, Sankara menon, Bishop Roz, Trinidade [] , Sebastiani] ) are not irrelevant. They are relevant because caste and status are historical, something attributed to a community over a long period of time. Caste is not a modern concept but historical. Cant talk about caste and social status without talking about it historically( which requires the use of old sources).

Also kindly look into the mentions of Bishop Roz, Sebastiani and Trinidade. They explicitly state about the social status. These are extremely old third party mentions. For Example Bishop Roz states in Bishop Roz (1604)[1] “However the descendants of Thomas of Cananeo always remained above them without wishing to marry or to mix with these other Christians.” Sebastiani (1663)[2] “ Although southists are found only in four or five places they are the noblest but very opposed to all others without ever being married to them “

Trinidade also states this[3] along with J Hough[4]. Frykenberg makes the statement after giving a detailed analysis on the history of Southists [5](refer page 107 -113 ). The paragraph from which the statement is borrowed deals with the social status of Christians. His words explicitly say that among the St Thomas Christians, the southists in particular, enjoyed higher caste status. Though he is ambiguous and doubtful as to whether the same was enjoyed by all St Thomas Christians, he seems certain about southists.

Fuller’s conclusions are based on his fieldwork and his research into historical documents and books (his constant reference to Ayyar,Brown, Mandelbaum,Thurston etc shows this). Therefore his statement that “Northists are far more the numerous but are ranked below the Southists” is not affected by the fact that the people he worked with were not aware of this division.

Though Exclusivity need not always mean higher status. But at times they do. The reason why the latter is true in this context is because the writings of Sankaramenon and Thurston attests the same. Sankara menon: Both of them state this:

“After their dispersion from Cragnore, The Southerners kept up their pride and prestige by refusing to intermarry”[6][7]

Sankaramenon was a hindu native, who has been an active figure in preparing the census of India. Thurston was a British Super intendent at the madras Govt Museum.

Unfortunately both Southists and Northists shared animosity historically and used every opportunity to belittle and to defame the other. Hence reliance has to be placed on third party works.

Plagiarism, citation and writing issues can easily be rectified.

Citations 1. Vellian, Jacob (1986). Symposium on Knanites. Syrian Church Series, page – 18 2. Vellian, Jacob (1986). Symposium on Knanites. Syrian Church Series, page – 35 3. Vellian, Jacob (1986). Symposium on Knanites. Syrian Church Series, page – 27 4. J. Hough, History of Christianity in India, London 1839, vol. I,pp 95-96

5. Robert Eric Frykenberg, "Oxford History of the Christian Church, Christianity in India from Beginning to the Present, pp 108-113 6. M. Sankara Menon, The Census Report of India 1901, volume XX, Cochin Part I. printed at the Cochin Government Press, Ernakulam 1903, pp. 44-45 7. Edgar Thurston, Castes and Tribes of Southern India, VI, Government Press, Madras 1909, p. 414

Bibliography 1. Edgar Thurston, Castes and Tribes of Southern India, VI, Government Press, Madras 1909 2. M. Sankara Menon, The Census Report of India 1901, volume XX, Cochin Part I. printed at the Cochin Government Press, Ernakulam 1903 3. C.J. Fuller, Kerala Christians and Caste System 4. Robert Eric Frykenberg, "Oxford History of the Christian Church, Christianity in India from Beginning to the Present 5. Bishops Roz Report, extant in British Museum Library ( MS. Add 9853, ff 85-99 ) – cited with original and its translation in Vellian 1986 6. Mar Sebastiani, Seconda Speditione All’ Indie Orientale ( Roma, 1672 pp, 146-147), (Venetia,1683), p.83 - cited with original and its translation in Vellian 1986 7. D.A. Trindade, Conquista Espiritual De Orienta vol 2, pp 322-323 8. J. Hough, History of Christianity in India, London 1839, vol. I

Nikkicool101 (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The historical sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, but Wikipedia relies on up-to-date WP:SECONDARYSOURCES written by modern experts on the topic. Sources written at the turn of the 20th century, let alone the 19th century, are almost always too out of date to use. And again, Frykenberg and Fuller don't quite corroborate what that passage stated.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.I shall create a new passage that is corroborated by Frykenberg,Fuller and Nathan Katz--Nikkicool101 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)