Talk:Saint Thomas Christians/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Recent edits

Thank you for your work, Ashley, but I'm afraid there are some problems with these additions. Some of the citations are inadequate or to very old sources. The Ananthakrishna Iyer book is from 1926 ([1]), while the Hough book is from 1839. These sources are too out of date to be used considering we have access to multiple more recent sources. Additionally, the Ponnumuthan book appears to be a book on spirituality and philosophy, not history, anthropology, etc., and so it probably should be avoided. The Pothan and Bayley books look good, but the cite for the former has no page number, while the latter has no publication information. That needs to be fixed. All in all we're going to have to take another stab at these additions with the more up-to-date sources and full citations.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain, I have made some improvements, hope it would rectify the issue. Sources: Iyer and Hough are given as additional references. The points for which these were the sole citations, I have added supporting sources. many more sources are their to confirm these points, but to avoid escalation, I think, these are sufficient. --AshLey ^Msg 15:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

These text are well sourced and yet have been deleted by User:Ashley thomas80.

It should be noted that according to Kerala Brahmin Namboothiri tradition and several scholars the kerala brahmin Namboothiris first settled in Kerala only in the eight century CE, while Christianity arrived in kerala in the first century CE, after St Thomas landed in Kerala in 52 CE to evangelize Jewish settlers in the Malabar Coast

thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Notes

Mr.Robin, I was trying to move it to a proper slot. Your points were not related to the Heading of the section. I think a better place is of traditions related to brahmanical origin. That's it. But the traditions related to Thomas of Cana and Jewish ethnicity is also equally disputable. --Ashley

Okay, I made some edits here. First, Ashely, thank you for correcting the issues I brought up above. The wording will still need some editing, but we're in a better place now. I removed the Hough source; there's just no need to use a source that old when more up-to-date sources are available. Second, I combined and removed some items from the "Terminology section". First and foremost, the source that originally backed up the line about "Nasrani Mappila", the Zupanov book, says nothing about Jews, it only mentions Muslims. The edit made it appear the source says something it doesn't say. I also removed the Gantz source for the same reason I removed the Hough source; it was published in 1863, and is too old to be adequate here. I did not remove the Bindu Malieckal source, but it lacks a page number, so that needs to be remedied. For the record I did not look into who added what, so I'm not taking a side, but material needs to be sourced to reliable sources with a full citation.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In this edit I merged a lot of content and sources, and excised some dubious and/or poorly sourced material. I added considerably more on years between the initial growth of the community and Portuguese contact, cited to academic sources. There is one section I hid, rather than remove. It includes a number of kosher-looking sources, but it appears to be using them to advance its own arguments about the origins of the community. It looks like WP:SYNTH, which has no place in an article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain, The references from Dr. Veluthat Kesavan a Calicut University publication (Prof of History from University of Mangalore) and the paper by Thomas Puthiakunnel published in Menachery edition are both valid and reliable. Yet you went on to hide it as WP:SYNTH. You claim to not to take sides. But your edit does not support your claim. With this attitude towards partisan editing your claim to being impartial is dubious. Your statement about the Northists is erroneous. There are traditions even in the Northists that claims jewish descent as referenced in Weil S (1982) and also in the traditional Ramban song and the reference of Thomas Puthiakunnel. Robin klein (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Robin, Pls don't try to drag the article towards your point of view citing a few references from some minority sources whereas the mainstream sources not at all mention any Jewish lineage for the Northists. Similarly, majority sources don't assign any Jewish lineage to Thomas of Cana or any other Knanaya immigrants, rather they are just mentioned as East-Syrian Christian people. We have to integrate the different views on our common history rather than mud-slinging each other.

• "Neither in it's history nor in it's everyday life does the St. Thomas Christians show signs of the presence of a foreign component in it's rank. The Southis are a minority..." Origin of Christianity in India: a historiographical critique -Benedict Vadakkekara- p.323

Your new inclusions on the nambudiri brahmin arrival in Kerala is hindering the smooth flow of the contents in this article. Had the tradition of brahmanic origin included, you could have suffixed these counterpoints. Since there are no historical evidence for the legend of Brahmanical Origin, it was deliberately omitted and there is no logic in quoting the counterpoints without it.

Dear Cuchullain, Thank you for your suggestions. Moreover, you have cleaned up the "Early History" commendably. I'll check for more improvements in the wordings, and you are welcome for more suggestions and improvements. Really. I was hurt a bit when you removed some of my edits, but still I'm happy that the quality and veracity of the article got improved. --AshLey ^Msg 09:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud, Robin. Your baseless accusations are making this working environment very unpleasant. You need to start commenting on content, not on the contributors. You need to stop calling edits "vandalism" that clearly don't meet the definition of WP:VANDALISM. You need to drop the uncivil language. We are all trying to improve this article and work together, but that is increasingly difficult when editors refrain from the expectation of civil, collaborative behavior – and this is not the first time we've talked about this.

To respond to your (and Ashley's) comments, in these edits, as far as what I removed entirely, I endeavored only to remove material that was unarguably unsourced or poorly sourced, inadequate sources (like 19th-century books and weak cites to TV documentaries), and some material that didn't appear to be particularly relevant (ie, the "Epigraphy" section, which was itself very poorly sourced). Otherwise, I moved material on culture to its own section (which still needs additional work; we'll get to that), did some rearranging, and merged some material that was becoming redundant with other sections. Notably, since we began this work, we were discussing the arrival of St. Thomas across several different paragraphs, largely saying the same things. I merged that material, keeping all the sources I could tell were reliable. This is what happens during a major overhaul and merger as we're undertaking now.

Regarding your comments about the Northists, they are not "my" statements. That was taken from the cited source, which mentions indigenous converts, but not Jews.

Regarding the WP:SYNTH issue, I'll explain that in more detail shortly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Cúchullain is right about the WP:SYNTH of those sources, a source that actually says what was claimed is still needed. As for accusations of bias, still looks like sensible handling of what the sources say and don't say. And the reminder about WP:NPA is fair too. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, In ictu. To further explain about the SYNTH issue, the policy says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In that passage, we have a reliable source talking about the Brahmins (Veluthat), and combine that with another reliable source talking about early Jewish colonies (Puthiakunnel), to imply a new conclusion: that Christianity must have preceded the Brahmins. It is doubtful that such a conclusion is stated explicitly in either source (in fact, I doubt that Veluthat even mentions the Jews or Christians, or that Puthiakunnel mentions the Brahmins). The sources themselves are clearly reliable (at least Puthiakunnel is already used elsewhere in the article), but we can only state what they actually state.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We need some description on the inscriptions (Stone and Copper) granting privileges to Saint Thomas Christians. Those are considered of immense importance in the history of Syrian Christians, Jews and even Nairs. Additionally, shall we include a table on the haplogroups of Syrian Christians from this page[2] --AshLey ^Msg 09:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A few lines about the inscriptions may be useful, but it's going to need much better sources than was there previously (the S.G. Pothen source may work, but it would need a full citation, and after a cursory search I can't track it down; the nasrani.net sources should be avoided). For what it's worth, the Frykenberg source contains a little bit about them (about in the same proportion that it talks about the "Song of Thomas". I really don't know what I'm looking at with that genealogy webpage. What would we say in the article?--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain, since you expressed interest in what could be stated in the article from the genealogy webpage from Family Tree DNA project - Syrian Christians of Kerala, India. The key findings so far as summarized by the Family Tree DNA project could be stated. Here you may find a brief summary of the key findings so far. [3]. It states that there is plenty of surprise with the genetic results showing middle eastern and Jewish lineage. Would you still be interested in stating this in the wikipedia article?? thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain, Thank you for your positive reply on Inscriptions. Regarding Genealogy Site, it's a primary data from incomplete project. So we can't synthesis any conclusion. Even if we include a table on haplotypes, it will be useful for only experts in that field who could interpret it. For example, 21 out of 64 samples were J2 type, which is considered as a Semitic one while 17 samples were R1a type which is considered as Indo-Aryan in the Indian context. Semitic and Indo-Aryan aspects can't be mentioned in the article since it will be a case of WP:SYN. Just consider it as a query from me, and I wouldn't like to compromise the standard of the article for this particular content.

Dear Robin, No need to be so passionate on the results. Don't forget that the samples include Knanaya too, and some Knanaya samples were found with L haplotypes, specific to local Indian people. This article already mentions the admixture of Jews and indigenous people and what more you are expecting. No need to quote the word "Jew/Jewish" 100 times to convey a simple point like this.--AshLey ^Msg 16:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ashley,

It was you who brought up the Family Tree DNA project website. I guess you did not check the summary or else you might not have mentioned about the webpage. Your interpretation about Knanaya sub group in the sample is totally your personal opinion. It is not stated in the project website. You accuse me of stating a term 100 times. Isnt this WP:NPA?? Please stop accusing me and bullying me. It was you who suggested stating summary from the Family Tree DNA project. Now you want to discount the very webpage that you suggested to be quoted in the article. It is ironic. Yes, as you said there is no need to be passionate about the results. Why are you so passionate about it?? thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing Ashley said was a personal comment, and there's no need for this discussion to be heated. Now, on the synthesis issue, if there's no resolution to the issues forthcoming I suggest we remove the problematic material. On the genealogy web page, if it's just a lot of raw data, I would regard it is at best a primary source, meaning we can't do any interpreting of what it means. It's probably best not to use it. Obviously if there is a reliable secondary source that analyses the data - whether it reveals Jewish DNA, Eskimo DNA, or whatever, that could certainly be included.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Robin has split the SYN statement into two sentences. Now the 1st sentence has become totally unrelated to this article. It's better to remove it.

Dear Robin, I'm not so passionate about any gene, and believe Dravidian, Indo-Aryan and Jewish - all are equally great. The genetic admixture of these three races are the one which I always suggest and proud to be. The genetic results are conforming to the hypothesis I tried to narrate in this article. Even though the data in project webpage is raw one, my intention was to give some publicity for the project. I'm equally concerned about the quality of this article too. SO I just sought for the suggestion from other editors. Regarding the L-haplogroups of Knanaya - The project doesn't classify knanaya groups specifically. But,in this regard, I was informed by 2 persons from that community during a discussion in NSC forum. -AshLey ^Msg 09:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

No, the first statement does not become irrelevant. With a huge section on socio cultural life etc, which is full of brahminical motifs. It is important to inform the reader regarding the stand of modern scholars about the arrival of brahmins to kerala in the eight century CE. So the first statement is in no way irrelevant. It has to be stated either in the early history section or in the socio cultural section along with the plethora of brahminical motifs or in both the sections. Deleting it would definitely be an agenda based edit. thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ashley,

You claim that you have tried to mention about the genetic admixture of the local population and jewish lineage amongst the Kerala Nasranis. But then your edits does not support your claim. You have consistently tried to systematically remove even the mention of the word "Jewish" and also accused me of mentioning the term 100 times or so. Your actions does not support your claims. thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to remove the imbalanced views and undue stress given to Jewish part of the story ignoring the indigenous traditions and lineage. If you recollect the early version of this article(on which we argued in Dispute Resolution Board),it misleadingly mentioned only the Jewish lineage, totally hiding the indigenous side. It's true that I appealed and attempted to restore the neutrality by removing unnecessary insertion of Jew/Jewish term which in turn had deteriorated the quality of this document. Regarding my claims and action- "Over here he(St.Thomas) spent the initial days with the Jewish community, preached the Gospel and evangelized them." && " The term "Mappila" represents miscegenation or Racial Admixture among Semitic people and indigenous people in the ancient coastal cities of Malabar.[42] ....... since racial admixture of the native people took place among Muslims with Arabs and Syrian Christian with Jews.[43]"[4] - these points were introduced by me, but I was helpless to find any reliable sources for proper citation. Let's have good faith on each other for the improvement this article.

Brahmanical traditions - Sanskritization of Syrian Christians is a fact while brahmanical origin is a legend yet to be proved. Both are different aspects in the history of Syrian Christians. Your new edits are just sufficient to attack the legend of brahmanical origin while it has nothing to do with brahmin rituals and traditions of Syrian Christians in the medieval Malabar--AshLey ^Msg 08:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Robin, the problem with your use of Veluthat is that you're using it to imply a conclusion that's apparently not in the source. You're using it to imply that "these other sources are incorrect about the Brahmins in relation to the St. Thomas Christians, because the Brahmins came later". But it is highly doubtful that Veluthat even directly mentions those other sources, or the St. Thomas Christians. It sounds like we need to vet the material on the Brahmins to address your concerns. Could you identify specific concerns with the material (ie, that the material doesn't accurately reflect the associated source, that it is directly contradicted by other sources of the same caliber or better, or that a source is suspect according to Wikipedia standards, etc.)? And please do it in a civil fashion.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem with the Veluthat reference. It is a valid academic publication stating historical perspective about brahmin arrival in kerala according to scholars. It needs to be mentioned in order to inform the reader what historians agree about brahmin arrival in kerala. The way brahmin passages are stated right now (especially in the socio cultural section) "implies" to the reader only about the alleged legendary brahmin conversion without stating that the supposed conversion is only a legend. It disregards other natives and locals and totally disregards Jewish diaspora. The reader needs to be informed that this is about alleged sanskritization and that the alleged brahmin conversion is a legend as stated by Mr Ashley. It needs to be clearly stated and not left to be "implied". In such a context it is inevitably essential to mention the historical perspective as shared by scholars regarding the arrival of brahmins to kerala. It is therefore necessary to mention the Veluthat reference. thanks Robin klein (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Robin didn't conceive my point on Sanskritization. It is entirely different aspect and also is a fact as mentioned by a large number of sources on Syrian Christians. The legend of brahmanic origin is yet to be proved(Genetic studies are getting converged positively on this aspect - R1a haplotypes), so we haven't mentioned it in this article, even though many sources cite this legend. But on the other side, Sanskritization or the brahmanic Inculturation of Syrian Christians is a fact above all doubts and so it has been mentioned in the section dealing with cultural identity. That can't be challenged by the new contents introduced by Robin. Now if you want to include that portion, 1st you have to mention the Legend and then balance the view with it. Otherwise some discontinuity is being feeling there. --AshLey ^Msg 16:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the Veluthat source; as I already explained, the problem is with how you're trying to use it, Robin. Once again, you're using it to imply a conclusion that's not in the source. The fact that some of the other material may be problematic doesn't mean that this isn't.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As you said the Veluthat source is valid and substantial, one would have to add this text without making it feel discontinuous. Deleting this valid historical context is not legitimate. thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Veluthat source is legit, but it has nothing to say about the subject of this article – the Saint Thomas Christians. You've added it here to try and counter claims you don't like. As has been explained several times now, this is WP:SYNTH, a variation of original research, and is not acceptable in the article. It appears we'd better review that section to determine what is appropriate, but this is one thing that is certainly NOT appropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your statement that I added the valid source of Veluthat in order to counter the claims that I do not like is purely uncivil discourse. I hope WP:NPA applies to all. thanks Robin klein (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is also certainly NOT appropriate that the reader remains uninformed about the historical context about the arrival of brahmins to Kerala. Robin klein (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the Brahmins. We include material on the Brahmins only as it relates to the actual subject, the Saint Thomas Christians. Your source evidently doesn't discuss the Saint Thomas Christians.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about brahmins. But some sections in this article are stated as if the people is questions were brahmins. The Veluthat source is therefore required. thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you just haven't bothered to read the policy that has been pointed out to you several times now, or if you are just willfully ignoring it, but it's clear to everyone who has weighed in besides yourself that your material is not appropriate here. Time to move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, here we are not discussing about Brahmins. Secondly, Nambudiri brahmins are just one group of brahmins in Kerala, who organised to a strong community between 7th and 8th centuries. In p. 253 of Kerala State gazetteer- Volume 2, it is mentioned that many groups of brahmins were sent to Kerala by Mayura Sarman (345 - 370 AD). So, it's not just about nambudiris, but a wider subject, yet to become clear. It's better to remove the disputed portion. --AshLey ^Msg 16:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I know I stand to be seen as wrong. Because with a coalition of two anything that I state as a single person is deemed untrue. Keeping a reader ignorant about a historical fact is unfair. The only way you could remove the text was by using the WP:SYN as a ploy. thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. At least three different editors (myself, Ashley, and In ictu oculi) have expressed that that material is problematic. Wikipedia works through consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That was a nice show of power. You were not civil in your discourse. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to seek dispute resolution if you don't think the consensus is fair or that you've been treated uncivilly. However, I think that if a third party finds an issue with anyone's behavior in this discussion, it will be yours.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture Gallery

What about including a picture gallery reflecting the cultural heritage, history, arts and life style of Saint Thomas Christians, in the bottom of the page? -AshLey ^Msg 08:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Could be helpful, though I'd rather hammer out the text first and add images in those sections.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Demography population statistics

The wikipedia article Saint Thomas Christians states the Saint Thomas Nasrani Christian population as around 6 million the wikipedia article on Kerala states the total Kerala Population as over 33 million. The percentage of Nasrani christians to the total Kerala population would then be over 17 % or so. However the population of Saint Thomas Nasranis is stated to be 12%. Could we please check on this? thanks Robin klein (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's something we definitely need to check on it. I hope to have a little time later on, so I'll try to look into it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

12% is more reliable. 6.05 M/31.8 M = 19% is the % of total Christian population including the people of Latin Rite and others(See 2001 Census data here [5]). According to 2011 Census (provisional), total population of Kerala has grown to 33.38 million. Assuming the Syrian Christian percentage at 12.25%[6] as given in Demographics of Kerala, the 2011 population of Nasranis in Kerala could be estimated as 33.38x0.1225=4.089 million. But the migration statistics are not available in Census data.--AshLey ^Msg 17:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Totally unrelated - it's good to see the editors on this article working well together and the article has massively improved. If any of you want a break, or sideline, from Kerala, then there's an article about the sacrifice of Noah/Abraham/Aaron at Wikipedia:Peer review/Korban Olah/archive1 which I've put up for peer review. As the editors here are active, 3rd party, and now working well together I thought I'd give it a plug. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

IP deletion

here? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Acts of Thomas

Is it Frykenberg, Bornkamm or both who believe that the Acts of Thomas were probably written in the 2nd century? Baum (p. 51) thinks that it was early 3rd century, and I seem to be finding quite a few others who say the same. Furthermore, do we really need both Frykenberg and Bornkamm as sources for that sentence? - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Frykenberg says second century; I don't know about the other. However, this book actually on the Acts of Thomas says "it is generally assumed that the Acts of Thomas have to be dated to the beginning of the third century" (p. 15). This edition of the same explains this, suggesting that the work may be closely related to the Acts of Peter, in which case it was "written in the beginning of the third century" (p. 26). This book by Bart Ehrman says "... it is difficult to know when the Acts of Thomas was written; most scholars have dated it to the third century and assumed it was written in Edessa..." (p. 122) I suggest we change it to "third century" and add one of these sources as a cite, perhaps removing Bornkamm unless someone else can verify it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine by me, and accords with what I was finding when I posted the opening message. - Sitush (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Citekill issue

There are a host of sources cited for "He spent his days in prayer and meditation in a hut. A few relatives and friends joined him there.^{[50][53][54][55][56]}" and the preceding bit of the paragraph. It looks likely to be a WP:CITEKILL situation but the sources are mostly written in Malayalam, and thus WP:NOENG also kicks in. Is there no single English language source that covers these statements, even if it means losing some small detail?

Most of the material on the later history needs a complete and total overhaul.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Issue #2

And there is also

The Archbishop convened the Synod of Diamper, which implemented various liturgical and structural reforms in the Indian church. The Synod brought the parishes directly under the Archbishop's purview; anathematised certain "superstitious" social customs characteristic of their Hindu neighbors, including untouchability and a caste hierarchy; and purged the indigenous liturgy, the Malabar Rite, of elements deemed unacceptable according to the Latin protocol.^{[34][35][36][37][38][39]} A number of texts were condemned and ordered burnt, including the Peshitta, the Syriac version of the Bible.^{[34][35][40][41]}

Do we really need all of those citations? - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This was a result of the merge a while back. The main cites for the first two sentences are Neill and Vadakkekara; Prasad is the source for the bit on "untouchability" (Neill doesn't elaborate upon the "superstitious" customs on that page). For those sentences we'll need those three, but neither Menachery cite has page numbers, so they can go, as can Geddes, as it's a primary source. On the last sentence, I think we can lose the footnote naming all the books that were destroyed and narrow it down to one source indicating that a number of texts including the Peshitta were destroyed - but we'll need page numbers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Consistency in naming

The Saint Thomas Christians are variously referred to in the article by that name, "St. Thomas Christians" and "Syrian Christians". Please can we standardise this, except where the reference occurs within a citation or when there is some other pressing need? Usually, the standard is the article title because that is deemed to have consensus; in this instance, I am not so sure because it is a bit of a handful to keep typing/reading in the text. Since "Syrian Christians" is a redirect, "St. Thomas Christians" would seem to be the way to go. Or perhaps even "STCs" after the first mention in any section. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely on this. "Syrian Christian" is potentially very confusing, as the article discusses other Syrian Christians outside of India. When we're referring to the Indian group, we need to use "St. Thomas Christians" in most cases.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, in fact these two are different. St. Thomas Christians are a subset of Syrian Christians. Take the case of Knanaya Christians. They are Syrian Christians but not St. Thomas Christians. In past we had two separate articles in Wikipedia one for Syrian Malabar Nasrani and another one for St. Thomas Christians. It seems like somebody had a wrong impression that both are one and eventually merged the articles. -InarZan Verifiable 08:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No, "St. Thomas Christians" refers to the entire group. The Knanaya are a segment of the St. Thomas Christian community, cf. [7][8][9] Some sources reserve the term "St. Thomas Christians" only for the "Northists", but they are in the minority. On "Syrian Christian", can refer to, well, any Syriac Christian, so it should be avoided in this article (unless we're talking about all Syriac Christians).--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there exists a wide-spread misunderstanding in this issue. Many make the mistake of using these two terms interchangeably. We can see the same mistake even in professional works as you cited. Knanaya people are not St. Thomas Christians since they came to Malabar many centuries after the emergence of St. Thomas Christian community. Take the case of Dalit Christians. Many Dalits nowadays convert to Christianity and some of them join Syrian churches with St. Thomas Christian tradition. But it does not make them St. Thomas Christians. The same is the case of Knanaya Christians. They came here in a later time and joined the (already-existing) church here. Therefore, they can be called Syrian Christians, but not St. Thomas Christians. - InarZan Verifiable 18:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes you are right, How can someone not "traditionally" believed to be converted directly by Apostle Thomas in the malabar be called a Saint Thomas Christian. The fact is the both Northist and the Knanaya are "Malabar Nasranis". They are Nasranis because they both belong to Jewish christian tradition. Those Jewish settlers in the Malabar coast who were converted by Apostle Thomas are called as Saint Thomas Christians. Those early Jewish christian traders who were converted to Jewish syriac christian tradition in Edessa and then settled in the Malabar coast are Knanaya. Both the groups are "Malabar Nasranis" because they both belong to Jewish christianity. That is why the page was actually called Syrian Malabar Nasranis. The actual term for the community as a whole is "Nasrani Mappila" or "Malabar Nasrani". thanks Robin klein (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about the Jewish origin, but I believe it this:

- InarZan Verifiable 19:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It is the adherence to Jewish Christianity (Nasrani) that makes the two groups part of one community. thanks Robin klein (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

InarZan, the "professional works" are what matters. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. A review of academic literature on the subject reveals that in the Indian context, "Nasrani" and "Saint Thomas Christian" are synonymous in those works, and the Knanaya are part of that ethnic group. There's nothing else to say here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Jewish Christianity of Nasrani is a total lie, there is no factual evidence for that claim. Neither original converts of Malabar nor the Knanaya immigrants proven to have a Jewish blood. - Sullivan Steiner|t 08:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Population stats

I query the utility of the table headed "Saint Thomas Christian Statistics". The figures are derived from three sources, some are estimates and there appears not to be a consistency of timing: it is a montage of snapshots rather than a single picture. Furthermore, just as WP:RSN has consistently held that the population statistics generated by the Joshua Project are unreliable because it is a Christian missionary/advocacy group, so too these figures have similar origins. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's retain it. I'll try to resolve the multiple source issue. I presume NSC Network is a reliable source for this purpose. --AshLey ^Msg 10:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that NSC is reliable but that might depend on the context: the sources that NSC use seem mostly to be akin to those that the Joshua Project uses, and the JP has been rejected on reliability grounds at WP:RSN. Nor should we necessarily retain content that is poor just because someone might hope to fix it, although often we effectively do this by tagging. Regardless, the first step would be to harmonise the figures so that they all relate to the same timescale etc. It is misleading and somewhat pointless, for example, to show figures from different years. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

NSC: I don't agree. Pls confirm with RSN --AshLey ^Msg 13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We do not run to RSN or any other noticeboard at the first hint of a disagreement. That is an abuse of process and potentially wastes the time of others. I suggest that, as with some of my earlier threads above, we hold off doing something until there has been a reasonable opportunity for others to comment here. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and it would appear that you missed my penultimate sentence. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No, once NSC is used as a single source, timescale would apparently be resolved. --AshLey ^Msg 13:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it? When I looked, the NSC seemed to be using different sources, published at different times, and those sources were not independent of the subject. - Sitush (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Need some time, I would check it. --AshLey ^Msg 10:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Found this thread only now. Regarding NSC as an RS, please refer the thread WP:RSN#NSC_Network. Thanks. - InarZan Verifiable 08:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How on earth have you "just found" a thread that you started last week. What nonsense. That makes for three threads that your have recently started at RSN and, interestingly, the only ones that you are reporting on article talk pages are ones where the outcome might work in your favour. That is acting in bad faith & lowers my appreciation of what you do.

In this particular instance, the issue is not the reliability of NSC but rather the reliability of the sources that NSC uses and whether or not it is possible to align those (ie: the figures should be derived from a single source that uses a consistent count methodology and a specific point in time). So, not only are you acting in bad faith but you are also completely misunderstanding the problem. - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, NSC is a tertiary source in this situation. Since they mention the sources that they use, we should refer to those rather than to NSC. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

By the notation "this thread", I mean this, not that. By the way, the 'outcome' was not in 'my favour'. I was against that website. - InarZan Verifiable 17:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there is something called WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT - InarZan Verifiable 19:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation page ranges

Some of the page ranges used in citations for this article are ludicrous. Please narrow them down. - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

An example is "Saint Thomas Christians followed the same rules of caste and pollution as that of Hindus and sometimes they were even considered as pollution neutralizers", which cites Vadakkekara, Benedict (2007). Origin of Christianity in India: a Historiographical Critique. Delhi: Media House. pp. 325–330.. It is by no means the most egregious example of sloppy citing and, while it is true that I cannot see two pages in that range, those pages that I can see do not appear to mention pollution neutralisation etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The other citation for the statement above is Fuller, C.J. (March 1976). "Kerala Christians and the Caste System". Man. New Series. 11 (1): 2., which is quite remarkable because Fuller's paper begins on page 53. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement "Syrian Christians constituted one of the largest forward caste community ^(sic) in Kerala, according to the estimates made by the 1968 Socio-Economic Survey, accounting for nearly 12 per cent of the total population." relies on <ref>http://www.jstor.org/pss/4367366</ref>. Now, I can create a proper citation - Sivanandan, P. (February 1979). "Caste, Class and Economic Opportunity in Kerala: An Empirical Analysis". Economic & Political Weekly. 14 (7/8): 475–480. etc - but that still leaves the reader having to trawl through five pages of dense text and multiple tables in search of a single figure. I've done that trawl and could not spot it, which just goes to show how useful it is to do things properly. I can only find one mention of the word "forward" in there also (on p. 480), and that makes no connection to the STCs. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Pollution: Vadakkekara, Benedict (2007). Origin of Christianity in India: a Historiographical Critique. Delhi: Media House. pp. 325–330.. - Pls read p.29 once again.If you go for googlesearch, you won't get it. One more thing, we may have to reasonably expand the page range, while we have to cite it at many places in the same article. This will help to limit the size of reflist. --AshLey ^Msg 14:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The size of the reflist is not important; being able to pin down the attribution is. I'll take another look at page 29 of Vadakkerkara (if I can see it), although I have no idea at all what GSearch has to do with it. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at page 329 and still cannot see the point re: neutralisers. Perhaps this is because the term is vague? - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have just seen this at WP:RX, relating to the Sivanandan. The implication is that, not for the first time, you have used a source without reading it. I am removing the content for now. It can be reinstated with the appropriate page number as and when you locate the precise point. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Duncan Forrester - cannot see a page

I cannot see page 42 of the Forrester reference added in this edit. I am a bit concerned because Forrester makes it clear on p. 41 that he thinks the caste situation can easily be overstated (which is exactly what I have been saying to the contributor for several weeks now). I would appreciate being able to read the quoted bit in context. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Why can't you see P.42 ? I've quoted it after studying the free preview in googlebooks. --AshLey ^Msg 14:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read GBooks issues for an explanation. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

George Menachery

As much as I appreciate the academic status of George Menachery, I think that wherever possible we should limit our use of works written or edited by him. In other words, if there are alternate reliable sources then we should use those. My rationale is that GM has a close connection to the entire Saint Thomas Christian milieu and, qualifications etc aside, is potentially compromised. Yes, I do understand the notion of academic peer reviews etc but, believe me, I have come across plenty who know how to work the system. I am not accusing Menachery of any such behaviour, but if we do not have to rely on him then there is no reason why we should. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree here. Menachery is one of the top scholars on this subject and few works can match his St. Thomas Christian Encyclopedia in breadth and depth. In terms of an overview perhaps the only source that's substantially better will be Neill. However, I do agree with removing cites to Menachery that don't have page numbers and have another source to verify the material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I too disagree with Sitush here. Only issue with Menacherry is the unavailability of his books on-line. I have attended a conference presided by him; his knowledge on this subject is nearly complete --AshLey ^Msg 13:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I bow to the pair of you, although the idea that someone's knowledge is "nearly complete" just boggles the imagination! That is one heck of a statement to make and does not show great judgment unless something has got lost in the phrasing. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I may have to retract that bow. I have recently seen [[10]], which opens up a whole can of worms. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that. In light of that I may have to revisit my opinion as well. I have not read the St. Thomas Christian Encyclopedia and was not aware it was self published. That would reduce its usefulness for our purposes. That said, Menachery and that work are well regarded in St. Thomas Christian studies and are regularly cited, including in academic publications, and offer an all-too-rare inside perspective on the subject. It is also unfortunate that there aren't more quality English-language overviews of the subject. In the final analysis I would recommend removing any cite to potentially controversial material as well as any inadequate cites (such as the ones missing page numbers).--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Jewish descent

Prof Shalva Weil's point is that amongst the Malabar Nasranis there are people of indigenous descent and also descendants of the Jewish diaspora that settled in the Malabar Coast. It is necessary to state as such in the article or else the point is not clear. Just stating the word `indigenous` is not informative that Jewish descent is shared even by the northists and not just the southist group. thanks Robin klein (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Robin klein is referring to this edit, which I have reverted because I could not understand what it was intended to achieve.

I am new to this article and my knowledge of the subject matter comes from a "sideways" perspective, through doing much work on caste-related articles including at least one - Paravar - that has a tangential connection to this subject, I am going to get confused very quickly if people keep using their own pet synonyms of "St Thomas Christians", even more so because it has already become apparent that some of the terms actually have subtle differences in meaning. If the Malabar Nasranis are the St Thomas Christians, as the article appears to say, then please could we stick to the latter rather than indulge in some form of subtle pov pushing or whatever. It makes life a lot easier for simpletons such as myself ;) On the other hand, if there is a difference then I would love to know what it is & probably the article should make it clear also.

I'll take a look at RK's contribution again, bearing in mind their comment above. I certainly do not think that it needs a quotation as it would appear that 2 or 3 words would do the job. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Thanks for the note. Yes 'Malabar Nasrani' refers to the very same people called 'Saint Thomas Christians'. The original term for the so called 'syrian christians of Kerala' is 'Nasrani Mappila' they are also called as 'Malabar Nasranis'. The portuguese called the same people as 'Saint thomas Christians' as they hated any Jewish connotation. 'Nasrani' is a hebrew term referring to early Jewish christians. So all these terms refer to the same people. Yes, you are right one only need to write that "The 'Saint Thomas Christians' are descendants of locals and the Jewish diaspora in the Malabar Coast, who became Christians in the earliest days of Jewish Christianity". (with the necessary citations of course, in this case Shalva Weil, Thomas Puthiakunnel & Ross would be three important citations). Stating the quote from Shalva Weil's paper would help in countering such inadvertent deletion in the future from a new editor. The quote could be stated as a note along with the reference. thanks Robin klein (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "Malabar Nasranis" is a confusing synonym for St. Thomas Christians. The problem with the Weil quote is that it doesn't say that it doesn't say the Northists in particular actually claim Jewish descent, it says this belief is held by "Cnanite or Southist group but also by the wider group of Syrian Christians". The other source makes no such claim either.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you (RK) saying that I deleted a cited quote, before you contributions today? I don't usually do that without a very good reason, so if that is what you are saying then I'd better trawl back through my edits over the last couple of days. And have you seen WP:CITEKILL? Are you saying that your proposed sentence really needs three sources? We would usually only buttress a statement with additional sources if it is subject to controversy or something similar. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush and Cuchullain, I shall put the full quote here from Shalva Weil page 181. "..it should be pointed out that the tradition of Jewish origin or Jewish connections in Kerala is preserved not only by the Cnanite or Southist group but also by the wider group of Syrian Christians, or Northists" (from Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16. pages 175-196. This entire quote is still there in the history of the page edit. I copied now from the page history. I think the new system of representing edit is not good. The earlier system used to show edits in red color and green color so nothing would be missed. I think wikipedia should go back to earlier system of using colour to show changes. This new system does not use colour. Or is it just my computer not showing color? Anyway, so the original text that I posted does refer to the Northists in particular. Please check the edit history. Anyway, Yes, I think three sources (especially from peer reviewed research journals) are needed. This could be controversial for some people. So more citations are needed. thanks Robin klein (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a new bit of code causing you to see that which you do. You will get used to it and, honestly, I think that it is an improvement. I need to do some work on this content issue and it probably will not happen tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall self revert, although I should say that citations and quote from peer reviewed research journal papers have been provided. This matter had already been resolved. Really I am pressured for time. I think it is unfair to again and again gain consensus over the same thing. I hope this can be avoided in the future. I really had devoted a lot of time few months earlier over this same thing. There are other passages in this same article which cites personal publications, websites and what not. Yet it is only the lines with Jewish connotations that are required to cite and quote. And when it is done it has to be done over and over again. All because it is Jewish. I guess the legacies of the Portuguese inquisition on the Nasranis (Saint Thomas Christians) still remains. I sincerely apologize if I come across as harsh, that is not my intent. thanks Robin klein (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that and please do not despair. There are people involved in this article who have far more experience of the subject matter than I do but we are all equal here and things will resolve according to consensus. I happen to live in an area that has one of the highest concentrations of Jewish people in the UK and, please believe me, I count many among my friends and even more among those whom I would trust for advice etc. This is not an issue about religious discrimination etc but rather one about keeping with the bounds of Wikipedia's policies. The Wikipedia "way" has an inherent systemic bias but I really do not think that the present issue under that category. We just need a little time and a little more conversation. Best wishes. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Robin, I personally support your opinion in this issue. But, I'm unable to find an on-line source to verify this matter. Also, we could drill down some sources to see any info on the ethnicity of indigenous converts. If yes, we could add a section to deal with Ethnicity. My equation is: Northists = Aryan + Dravidian + Jew. Could you please help me. --AshLey ^Msg 11:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a source, a peer reviewed academic journal paper by a Scholar from Hebrew University Jerusalem. Here is the page number and the quote. I shall put the full quote here from Shalva Weil page 181.

"..it should be pointed out that the tradition of Jewish origin or Jewish connections in Kerala is preserved not only by the Cnanite or Southist group but also by the wider group of Syrian Christians, or Northists" (from Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16. pages 175-196.

thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire Thomas of Cana story can be disputed. It is a legend and there is next to nothing that supports his presence. I have no problem with saying "... Thomas of Cana, a Jewish Christian, ..." because that is what Baum appears to be saying on the page cited in the article. But we should also note that the entire thing is another traditional myth of origin (as Weil also says). I still do not see why we need multiple citations as proposed above, nor the significance of the Weil quote. I still not do see where in that quote Weil says that the Northists claim an origin from Thomas of Cana, since he explicitly says "Jewish origin or Jewish connections", and the two are not the same thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Northists do NOT claim descent from Thomas of Cana. That is the point. The Southists claim to have arrived in Kerala from the Levant in the 4th Century C.E. while the Northists claim to be descendants of the local converts and converted Jewish diaspora who were present in 1st century C.E. when Thomas the apostle arrived in Kerala to convert the Jewish settlers in Kerala. What Shalva Weil is stating is that the difference between the Southists and the Northists is that the Southists trace descent from Knai Thoman who arrived in the 4th century C.E. and the Northists trace descent from the converted natives and converted Jewish trading settlers who were present in Kerala in the 1st century C.E. These are two different groups within the Nasranis (Saint Thomas Christians) who have two different accounts of their lineage. thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that the Northist do not claim descent from Thomas of Cana, and the article already saus that. I still do not see the point of the Weil quotation - it adds nothing to what the article already says, since it does not refer to Jewish trader settlers etc in the 1st century etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Weil quotation makes it clear that there is claim of the Northists to Jewish descent. This is not mentioned in the article and it needs to be mentioned. Also there is a paper by Thomas Puthiakunnel (1973) which states that Jewish trading posts paved way for the Saint Thomas Christian tradition. This needs to be mentioned in the article. thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not. I have already explained why this is so. You are misreading what Weil says, at least in that quotation. Weil is specific in saying "origin or connections"; not "origin", nor "origin and connections". - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Shalva Weil also states in her paper "Kerala ’known through intensive trade ... was already a melting pot of numerous religions’ (Thomas 1980: 6)." (page 181)

and another quote from page 183

"St. Thomas is said to have established seven churches in Kerala-at Maliankara, Palayour, Kottakkavu, Kokkamangalam, Quilon, Niranam and Nilakkal-in at least two places--Palayour (Paloor) and Quilon (Kallam) - where Jewish communities were known to have been in existence. Segal points out that ’it is almost axiomatic that Christian missionaries should have used Jewish centres ... as their base of activity’" quote from page 183 from Shalva Weil. thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I still do not see the point. Is this paper available online somewhere? It might be easier if I read the entire thing because all of these quotes are quite clearly lacking in context. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The context of the quotes is very clear. This is a paper showing the relations between the Malabar Nasranis (Saint Thomas Christians) and the cochin/Malabar Jews in general and that of the Knanaya people and Cochin/malabar jews in particular. Why are you showing distrust in me. Wikipedia is based on equal trust and good faith on all editors. I don't see that happen here. I have given several quotes and page numbers. The context is clear. It is legitimate to restore the statement about Jewish descent of the Northists. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not distrusting you. I would just like to see the paper and I am concerned that you may not be correctly interpreting what you are reading, as is certainly the case with the initial quote that you provided. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No I did not misinterpret her quote. Here is yet another quote from Shalva Weil from the same paper, page 182. You would know why I have not misinterpreted her quote. "St. Thomas retired to the Jewish quarter in Cranganore, where he took up residence. Apparently, St. Thomas regularly attended synagogue where he preached about Jesus, the Messiah. He explained to the Jews the meaning of the Scripture and he spoke to them of Jesus, his miracles, of his death, of his resurrection. And many believed. Rabbi Paul demanded baptism ... and other families followed his example. And the Jews who remained obdurate gave the numerous Christians the name Nazarins." (from Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16. pages 175-196). It is now legitimate to restore the statement about Jewish descent of the Northists. thanks Robin klein (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You did, and I have explained why on several occasions - as a standalone quote, it does not support your proposed statement. None of these quotes seem to mean much at all in relation to your original point, although I am beginning to wonder if you have changed your intent & whether that might be a part of the confusion. This is why it would perhaps be easier if the article was made available for others to view. I will ask for a copy at WP:RX later today. I would be interested anyway to see what she has to say about the entire myth issue, since she seems to be saying all sorts as if they were truths when, in fact, the general opinion seems to be that there simply is not sufficient documentation etc to validate much at all. This distortion sometimes happens when quotes are taken out of context. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have now asked for a copy at WP:RX. Please note that it seems likely your citation is incorrect - I think that it should be Weil, Shalva. (1992). "Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Canaanite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala". Indian Sociology. 16 (2). {{cite journal}}: Text "pages 175-196" ignored (help), per this source. According to GScholar, that article has been cited around 25 times, but there are different spellings being shown. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No she is not saying all sorts of things as if they were truths, that would not be a fair statement on this scholar. If you want to accuse me then it is fine but I don't think it is fair to accuse her when she may not be there to defend herself. She is aware of the several different myth of St Thomas in Kerala. She is only discussing why the Jewish descent of Northists is more probable.

The copy that I have says:

Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: the Cnanite Christians and the Cochin Jews of Kerala Shalva Weil Contributions to Indian Sociology 1982 16: 175 DOI: 10.1177/006996678201600202

The year of publication is (1982). It is not (1992) as you mentioned it. Please check it. thanks Robin klein (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly why proper citations are important. It could have been reproduced later, of course, or it could be an error in the source that I linked. But we all need to sing off the same hymn sheet and to do that it is important to include full details, including the doi, the edition of a book etc. It can be obtained from here, and I will go add that to my RX request now. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This could be helpful.[11] New World Encyclopedia - Saint Thomas Christians.117.196.135.87 (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The New World Encyclopedia is not a reliable source, as per past discussions at WP:RSN. Among other issues, it is a product of the Moonies and is fundamentally a mirror of our content with adjustments to suit the viewpoint of that church. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet another quote from another peer reviewed academic paper. This is a quote from Ross I.J. (1979) University of Texas Publication. "Ritual and music form a close relationship in the life of the Syrian-Christian community. Similarities between the rites and customs of the Syrian Christians and the Jews of Kerala reflect a possible common origin in the ancient Middle East, and serve as heuristic evidence in support of the historical claims of both communities." (from Ross, Israel J. (1979) "Ritual and Music in South India: Syrian Christian Liturgical Music in Kerala." Asian Music. 11 (1): 80-98) This quote states that the Cochin Jews and Nasranis (a.k.a syrian christians of kerala a.k.a Saint Thomas Christians) share a common origin. This is stated clearly. I hope the editors would stop insulting me by stating that I do not know to read english or that I do not know to interpret english text or that only their interpretation is somehow more valid and accurate. This is a quote from Ross from the University of Texas. At least I can try and provide quote from a valid source even though I am inferior and stupid according to so called NEUTRAL editors who claim to have no hidden agenda. At least please try to respect international scholars from world class universities. thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That quote shows, yet again, that you are not fully comprehending that which you read. It does not say that the groups you refer to "share a common origin". What it says is "reflect a possible common origin", which is quite a different statement. I am unsure of the relationship between Ross's "Jews of Kerala" and your "Cochin Jews", but it does not matter greatly because you are misrepresenting the source in any event. Given this ongoing issue of comprehension, I think that it may be necessary to review all of your contributions to articles, unless you want to self-review them and demonstrate a competence to do so. It is unfortunate but there is potentially a quite big problem here. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is another quote from Ross I. J. "history of the Syrian Christian community in many respects parallels that of the Jews of Kerala. Like the Jews of Cochin (a coast city with one of the principal ports in South India) page 80-81 Also there is the traditional Ramban Song of the syrian christians which is sung during weddings. It mentions that the early people converted by Saint Thomas the apostle included the locals and the Jewish diaspora. I had also cited the Ramban song in the article, but the citation was removed. ("The Song of Thomas Ramban" in Menachery G (ed); (1998) "The Indian Church History Classics", Vol. I, The Nazranies, Ollur, 1998. [ISBN 81-87133-05-8]) Removing citations without discussion in tantamount to vandalism and that has led to this problem. I am now wondering how you went about removing references and citations without discussion and ask everybody else to engage in discussion to add even a line. The statement in contention talks about the claim of the saint thomas christians of jewish origin which is mentioned in the Ramban song sung at weddings and the claim is supported by the conclusion of Ross "Similarities between the rites and customs of the Syrian Christians and the Jews of Kerala reflect a possible common origin in the ancient Middle East, and serve as heuristic evidence in support of the historical claims of both communities". page 88. thanks Robin klein (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that this has gone on long enough, Robin. You are not making any progress because you are either clutching at straws, unintentionally misreading or deliberately misrepresenting. I suspect the middle of those three. I am at a loss regarding how to deal with this situation, which is beginning to take on a somewhat tendentious appearance. Your latest quote also does not verify your proposed statement, and you have had input from two other people in this thread who also feel that your earlier stuff did not verify it. Perhaps now is the time to go away and spend a while constructing a rock-solid proposal that does not rely on misinterpreted sources. Sorry, but I really do not think that this is going anywhere right now: Wikipedia will still be here in a week or a month, or however long it takes to construct a workable proposal that complies with policy (& using a song as a source does not!). - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The ramban song is the traditional song. Yes it is just a song. But unfortunately the Ramban song is one oral tradition that one has to rely on for reference as does even Fryknberg (2008) even he referes to it in page 92 of his work. If you feel there needs to be a better proposal then as a collaborative wiki exercise what do you propose. The nasranis do claim Jewish descent and scholars say that it is probable. Well, what do you suggest. How should it be written based on the quotes. thanks Robin klein (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I really do not know what the solution is, other than what I have already said or you amending your proposed statement. Alas, Wikipedia does have numerous forms of systemic bias and dealing with the oral history tradition is a big problem for India-related stuff. There appear to be reliable sources that touch on the possibility of a connection etc, so perhaps rewording is your best solution until you can find something that more strongly supports what you consider to be correct. However, with so many sources referring to the possibility, the chances are now quite high that even if you did find a source that was adamant, well, we would still have to point out that other sources are rather more tentative. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Thanks for the response. For the time being a rewording seems a better option. What do you suggest? Could you please suggest a rewording that could be valid given these sources and quote. Please do state it here. thanks Robin klein (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Robin is trying to include a genuine point, but lacks sufficient support from WP:RSs. But, I'm sure, the ongoing genetic researches will finally reach there. Robin, could we cite the research by Mini Kariappa with sufficient balancing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley thomas80 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not have access to all of the sources that you are quoting and therefore cannot put them in context. I do now have the one that I requested at WP:RX but I need to read it. I am confident that AshLey has an opinion regarding phrasing etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Mini Kariappa's genetic research seems happy to acknowledge the Jewish heritage of the Nasrani people. She says that the so called brahmin population in the South Western coastal India are all mostly of Jewish ancestry that mixed with the natives subsequently. But Alas those with agenda stand to deliberately misinterpret it to mean that the admixture means Jewish and brahmin. No that is not so. That is why it is not referenced here. Her genetic working paper is yet to be published in a journal with all the necessary clarity in writing to avoid 'deliberate' misinterpretation. The clarity of her work as of now comes only from the interview that she gives in the Malayalam Newspaper 'Malayalam Manorama' on the 11th of September 2011. It would be better to cite Mini Kariappa when she states clearly in her paper what she stated in the interview. (Here is the link [[12]]) That the Nasranis are of Jewish descent who mixed with the locals and no other interpretations which people are keen to make especially in the casteist social background of India. Her interview link could be cited as of now as she is the first author on the genetic studies on the Nasranis linking the nasranis genetically to J2 haplo group and the Kohanim genetic marker (the jewish priestly gene of the Cohen clan of the Levites). Her interview is more clear about her conclusion of the Nasranis of being of Jewish descent (and no other agenda based deliberate misinterpretation) Her interview is more clear than her working paper as seen in late 2011.

However, the world of scientific research is fast. The better and latest work to discuss about possible Mediterranean descent of the Syrian Christians (Nasranis a.k.a Saint Thomas Christians) is the 2012 publication Parvathy SN, Geetha A, Jagannath C. "Haplotype analysis of the polymorphic 17 YSTR markers in Kerala nontribal populations. Molecular Biology Reports". 2012 Feb 5. It states "The allele frequency distribution in tribal and non tribal communities when compared with the other world populations in the previous studies suggests that Malabar Muslims and Syrian Christians have greater influence from the Mediterranean gene pool".

The sources I gave are reliable sources. They are peer reviewed academic papers from Research Universities. They are from the late 1970s and early 1980s and fall shy from directly stating that the Nasranis are Jewish. They state that there is much evidence that the Nasranis are of probable Jewish origin. So with the papers that I have cited the statement that could be written is probably "Scholars have noted that the Jewish origin of the Nasranis is probable (Ross,1979). This is especially more likely since latest genetic studies state that there is high level of mediterranean gene pool amongst the 'Mappilas' (yet another term for the Nasranis a.k.a Syrian christians of kerala a.k.a. Saint Thomas Christians) (Parvathy SN, Geetha A, & Jagannath C, 2012)" I have given the citations and the quotes from the papers. thanks Robin klein (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep genetics etc out of it. It causes nothing but trouble, in part because of the point that Robin klein raises: it moves so fast. There are studies and counter-studies regarding just about any group in India, they often involve minute samples, as well as self-identification by people (many of whose ancestors, despite the prevalent endogamy, have in the past "moved" from one community to another). They also involve us interpreting scientific jargon that I doubt many of us have the expertise to deal with. I cannot think of a single caste/community article in which I have had involvement (& that is a lot of them) where the genetics stuff has been beneficial. We should not use the abstracts, by the way, because they often lack significant qualifying information. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears I misread Robin's edit before, for which I apologize, but as Sitush points out it appears he has misinterpreted the source. At any rate we are spending a lot of time debating a single phrase in a discussion of what is basically an ahistorical origin myth. The entire point of the passage is that (1) there was apparent migration of Syrian Christians to India from about the 3rd century on, and (2) the Thomas of Cana story is a culturally important tradition about this comparatively shadowy period and subject. I don't see a need to go out of our way here to mention the idea that Northists claim descent from Jews when that has little if anything to do with the Thomas of Cana tradition. All that's particularly relevant to the Thomas of Cana story is that he was said to have led a migrant group, and that the Southists claim descent from this group while the Northists claim descent from local peoples who converted to Christianity.

As an aside, both Baum and Vadakkekara mention that in some versions of the Thomas of Cana tradition, the Northists are descended from Thomas of Cana through his children by his Indian second wife or concubine. I wonder if this is what Weil is talking about regarding Southist and Northist traditions of Jewish descent. At any rate, we don't have any sources that specifically say the Northists as a whole trace their descent from "converted Jewish settlers".--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We do have source that specifically say that the Northists also have claims that trace their descent from converted Jewish people from the malabar coast. Here is the quote from Shalva Weil, page 182. "St. Thomas retired to the Jewish quarter in Cranganore, where he took up residence. Apparently, St. Thomas regularly attended synagogue where he preached about Jesus, the Messiah. He explained to the Jews the meaning of the Scripture and he spoke to them of Jesus, his miracles, of his death, of his resurrection. And many believed. Rabbi Paul demanded baptism ... and other families followed his example. And the Jews who remained obdurate gave the numerous Christians the name Nazarins." (from Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16. pages 175-196). As a postscript to this she states "..it should be pointed out that the tradition of Jewish origin or Jewish connections in Kerala is preserved not only by the Cnanite or Southist group but also by the wider group of Syrian Christians, or Northists" (from Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16. pages 175-196. How sad people are trying to interpret the paper of Prof Shalva Weil without ever having read it. This is sad. thanks Robin klein (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry. I have had a think and believe that Cúchullain is correct. The point is pretty trivial here: you have thrown a lot of quotations at it but the article conveys the salient points. If we mention every myth of origin etc relating to every religious group then we'd have discussions such as this one going on all over the place and development of the more generally useful aspects of such articles would be hindered. A Jewish connection is mentioned, as is Thomas of Cana: let's leave it at that. - 05:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You said earlier that a compromise rewording could accomodate even the Northist claim. Why dont you please suggest a rewording that would be consistent with the sources and quote. Since it is not that there is no suggestion of jewish connection. Just a line would be fair for all the groups involved. Please I think, a single line of rewording would be fair. There are other people who are reverting. I understand that you may think it is me and may feel like taking your anger on me. Please dont doubt me. I sincerely was waiting for you to suggest a fair rewording than an abrupt one sided end. You asked me to make a self revert and I did. I requested you for a fair rewording. I sincerely believe you have the skill to do so. Please reconsider a fair rewording. thanks Robin klein (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I also explained my doubts at being able to do that rewording, and have now had a longer think and have explained that the point is trivial, perhaps not to you but certainly to the vast majority of our readership. The fact that suddenly there are other people stepping in with edits on the article is irrelevant: in articles such as this, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry and off-wiki campaigns are quite common. They also rarely work and, if anything, can sometimes tend to harden the attitude of others & become self-defeating as a consequence.

There are three of us who have tried to explain some of the various issues to you, and two of those have quite a lot of experience in content work here. I think that you really need to let this drop now. It is not going to happen here, although if you can come up with something and can avoid misrepresenting things etc then you could always take the matter to dispute resolution. I don't fancy your chances given what has gone on here, but the route is open to you. - Sitush (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I shall try to reword again. However what is more important is that you should not have indirectly accused me of sock puppetry or whatever else. I have not done so. Instead may be you could consider that this matter might be important for a lot of people who are just watching or reading the discussion without active participation. Please it is important to keep good faith even if you think that an editor may be making an error. I dont need to engage in sock puppetry. I try to voice my views. You can tell me if you agree or no. But there is no need to implicate or accuse me for the behavior of other people. Please I dont think I am wrong with that point, I hope. thanks Robin klein (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I very deliberately did not accuse you of anything. I merely explained something in relation to a point that you raised. I had already told you on my own talk page that I have no opinion regarding the origins of the relevant editors.

As far as rewording goes, I wouldn't bother unless you are taking it to DR. This issue has been discussed for long enough here. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Robin, no one is accusing you of being behind these recent sock puppet attacks, directly or indirectly. Beyond that, I think it's pretty clear there's currently no consensus to include this point, and that the way it had been done is problematic on several fronts. As far as I'm concerned it's time to move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Origin of St.thomas christians has less to do with the present day population. It may be true that some of the earlier people were converted jews. Some were refugees from mesopotaemia. How ever they mingled with the local population. Looking at the present day population, we can say that many people are later converts or post post portuguese converts. These converts are more in churches with strong evangelic activities . CSI church, Marthoma church , Syro Malankara Church and Syro Malabar churches have the strogest missionary force and they gained so many souls from all hindu castes in the last 500 years.There are converts in Malankara Orthodox church also , but in a lesser extent due to the lack of strong missionary force. This is a reality whether people like or not. So could we say that all these population are of Jewish decent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.139.4 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Politics: Misinterpretation of Source: Devika

I'm quoting different passages from the source here

1."Modern politics of the state as a result is inextricably liked with intense community politics."

2."Scholars have been deeply divided on the significance of the powerful presence of organized communities in politics. For some, it defines Kerala’s politics as rather ‘sub-modern’ and fundamentally inimical to transparent democratic processes – the argument, often, is that Kerala’s politics should be understood as the extension of religion and caste into the public domain, and thoroughly modern forms of mobilization, such as that of the communists, succumbed to it sooner or later (Hardgrave 1965, Fic 1970, Gopakumar 1986). Some have accused it of being the prime reason for political instability (Gopakumar 1986). In contrast, others have been markedly optimistic, suggesting that that organized communities have competed with each other largely around resources and most often within the terms of democratic politics. This, they point out, has helped to create a fairer distribution of social and economic resources among communities, and to a large extent, mitigate communal hatred such that outright violence between communities has been relatively less in Kerala compared to other parts of India (Jeffrey 2003, Mathew 1989, Thomas 1985, Nampoothiri 1999, Kooiman 1989, Chiriyankandath 1993). These studies have argued that for these reasons community politics in Kerala should not be lumped with religious nationalism or communalism. A third view has stressed that such formations arose from the fact that caste and class-divisions in Kerala have often coincided – and that communist and nationalist engagements with community politics have often been driven by perceptions of such coincidence and distance (Karat1970, Menon 1994, Nossiter 1982). In general, there is agreement that in the early and mid 20th century Malayalee society, communalism referred not to fierce hatred and violence between communities, but to intense competition around rights and resources within the field of modern politics and centred upon the state"

3."The Syrian Christian community has been widely recognized to have made sizeable gains through community competition in 20th century Kerala."

Here in the paper, Devaki doesn't conclude the political maneuvers of different castes in Kerala as communal, but asserts an unbiased term: Community politics or community Competition. In a recent inclusion by User:Sitush, which I tries to revert, emphasizes the biased and un-sourced term communal in the introductory part of the sub-section. Sadly, Sitush has reintroduced the same content without discussing the matter. Please justify the action or remove the content. -AshLey ^Msg 14:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you try rephrasing your point? I cannot understand much of it. There is not need for all the bolding, by the way, and it actually makes things harder to read. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way and actually it's very simple. Shoot the point, instead of running away from it and beat around the bush. You have already

reverted my modification of the challenged point, citing a BOLD reason. If you don't remember what you have done here recently, how could I help you? Anyway, you have to explain how you could brief Devaki's paper into the current form: ie, STSs engaged in the regional politics on COMMUNAL basis. ----Ashley

I'm afraid I can't understand the issue here? Is it just the wording or what?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Cuchullain, Yes, my request is to replace the idea of COMMUNAL POLITICS with COMMUNITY COMPETITION. While the source hesitates to mention the word communal, why Sitush thrusts it here. -Ashley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.175.27 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I think that you might be misunderstanding my use of the word, "communal". In the interest of trying to avoid even close paraphrasing, I selected what seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable alternate. You need to bear in mind that, as Devika and Varghese make clear, the causes of the division along community lines changed over time, from a focus on rights and resources that was fundamentally non-violent etc to a situation that became based primarily on caste status, religion, and physical antipathy, spurred on in part by the appearance of the Hindutva-supporting BJP. The section is not complete because I seem to be fire-fighting on far too many articles at the moment, but it will be rounded out. The bits that I have added are certainly per the source, and all this (to me) pedantry is starting to wear me down, sorry. I am going to do something else here for a few hours. Arguing over a single word etc just does not do it for me. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarify: there is a difference between various communities competing and various communities fighting, and also between competition and what amounts to a more base hatred or suspicion. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are not concerned about this single word, which is of immence potential in the Indian point of view, I would carry on to rephrase the sentence. We have to follow the source here, not our creativity. -Ashley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.175.27 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that I was unconcerned. I said that it seemed like pedantry to me & such stuff gets me down. I have read and read your comments and am wondering now whether my view might be because you were still not being clear. It looks like your point is that "communal" might be read as "communalism" in India, and that "communalism" has some specific political meaning in India now that it didn't have there in the past. Am I right? Is this your point? Have you considered what the phrase "community politics" might mean to the majority of the English-speaking population, who are neither in India or of the Indian diaspora? Local democracy processes etc.

The solution may be to use the "organised communities" formulation, although my gut feeling is that sooner or later someone will object to that also. I never thought that I would end up spending more time dealing with etymology etc than actually writing content, but this last week or two has been horrendous & for some reason it is mostly on articles involving the STCs. I hope that it is not going to continue: this is the English language WP and is intended for readers of English worldwide, not merely English readers in India. You cannot assume local knowledge either in the article or on the talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

To avoid misinterpretation of words, Communal or community politics, we have to rephrase the entire sentence according to the source. While the source tries to clarify that the competition among different communities should not be lumped with communal-ism, how we could use the same sense in the introduction. The word, COMMUNALISM is surely a misleading one in the Indian context, a foreign reader should view the article in the Indian context also. We could rephrase it as "STCs have been involved in the regional politics; engaged in competition with other prominent castes and religions in order to safeguard their interests." --AshLey ^Msg 09:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The article does not call it "communal-ism" - that is your attempt to connect one word used in the source to another used in this article. Nor, as far as I can recall, does the article say that the issue is limited to prominent castes and religions; nor does the relevant bit of the source refer to STCs - it is making a general comment, setting the scene (which indeed was the phrase that I used in my edit summary). You still have not answered the query that I raised: does it have a specific meaning in the Indian context? And if so, what? And why do you think that the rest of the world needs to change its definition of "communal" to suit the Indian use of "communalism" when the latter is not even mentioned in the article? - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You haven't understood my point. I'm repeating: While the source tries to clarify that the competition among different communities should not be lumped with communal-ism, how we could use the same sense in the introduction. The source also sets the scene for STCs politics, but deliberately avoids the misleading word "communal". The source itself differentiates communalism and competition in the Indian context- please read the 2nd point of the 1st comment. But in the STC case, as the article explains, it was just political maneuvers and strategic alliances, which characterizes the politics of Kerala. But in the Indian Context, communalism is associated with hatred and violence. This fact finds place in the wiki article on Communalism also. Regarding the new form: If you are concerned, replace the word "prominent" with "different". --AshLey ^Msg 10:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I am still considering this. I am away this weekend and will have another read of the source. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Still not sure I understand the problem here. If the term "communal" is such an issue we can certainly reword.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Ashley. But the problem is not confined to the word "communal". The entire paragraph should be rewritten.

1. "Syrian Christians have been involved in regional politics on a communal basis."

The word "communal" is really offensive in Indian context. It is like the word "racist" in US. Therefore "communal basis" should be replaced with "community basis" unless you could find a sentence in the source that explicitly says "Syrian Christians have been involved in COMMUNAL politics".

2. ".. Until the mid-20th century the primary cause of the political alignmentment along communal lines in the region was competition for rights and resources, rather than because of any dislike of other communities…"

This gives the wrong impression that the recent political alignment of Syrian Christians is mainly due to their dislike of other communities. In fact, the source talks about all communities in general. Detached from the context, this portion is misleading .

3. "... but in more recent times there has been a rise in violence and antagonism that has coincided with a promotion of Hindu politics by organisations such as the Bharatiya Janata Party."

The violence that the source talks about is Maradu communal riots, in which Christians were not a party. Therefore this sentence is unwanted in this article about St. Thomas Christians. Apparently BJP has nothing to do here.

After all, I think, WP:INTEXT is needed here. - InarZan Verifiable 20:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Then we should work on the wording. We do need to be careful to transmit what the sources are actually saying.Cúchullain ^t/c 12:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm back after some wonderful trips. Yes, Inarzan is correct in all three points. I was stuck with the 1st issue only. My attempt to remove the Bharatiya Janata Party stuff was also blocked by Sitush. We could trim the challenged portions and resolve the issue: "Syrian Christians have been involved in regional politics. Participation based on caste and community divisions and sympathies has been a feature of politics in the present day state of Kerala and its predecessor entities." It could sufficiently set the scene for the rest of the section. The reader could be freely allowed to call this as communalism or competition. --AshLey ^Msg 14:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No. That is sanitising the point. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm moving forward remove the portions related to communalism and BJP, which are quoted out of context here. We have to find a consensus view, if it is to be re-introduced. --AshLey ^Msg 09:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted you. You cannot just remove sourced information when you have challenged it and there is no consensus for removal. While I am all in favour of keeping focus in articles, it is necessary to explain that the STCs are not a special case in Kerala politics, otherwise any explanation of their doings could be taken to be either puffery or denigration, depending on your POV. This is the point and you seem consistently to be unwilling to address it. - Sitush (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we not just change the phrase "communal lines" to "community lines", since it is the "communal" word that appears to be causing all of the offence. The reference to BJP could be dropped, but the general point about the linked Hindu politics article is valid: it was a theme in the 1930s during CP's time etc and it has emerged again in more modern times. - Sitush (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The proposed changed would certainly improve the section. But, the phrase "community lines" may not transcend much meaning to a common reader. Anyway, the following paragraphs could convey the reader about the practical meaning of this phrase.

The source, in many occasions, raises the idea of Hindu Politics at many places, but sometimes with respect to Muslim-Hindu riots also. At the same time source doesn't mention any competition or rivalry between STCs and Hindu community as a whole. STCs allied with some Hindu castes, fought with CP & Nairs for resources. Later, they allied with Nairs and fought with CP. These exercises were not Hindu-Christian "communal" issues or anything related to Hindu Politics. CP tried to play the Hindu-Politics Card, as you suggested above. But, CP's tricks didn't spoil the good relation between STCs and Hindu Community as a whole. In my opinion, recent surge in the violent form of politics could be true in the general political history of Kerala, where Muslims are also there. But is not true in the case of STCs --AshLey ^Msg 11:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Now it looks far better than earlier. But let me propose a further rearrange.

Now the paragraph is like this:

Syrian Christians have been involved in regional politics on a community basis. Participation based on caste and community divisions and sympathies has been a feature of politics in the present day state of Kerala and its predecessor entities. Until the mid-20th century the primary cause of the divisions between the various communities was competition for rights and resources, rather than any dislike of each other, but in more recent times there has been a rise in violence and antagonism that has coincided with a promotion of Hindu politics.

We shall move the first sentence to the next paragraph which will improve comprehension. Then the section will look like this:

Involvement in politics

Participation based on caste and community divisions and sympathies has been a feature of politics in the present day state of Kerala and its predecessor entities. Until the mid-20th century the primary cause of the divisions between the various communities was competition for rights and resources, rather than any dislike of each other, but in more recent times there has been a rise in violence and antagonism that has coincided with a promotion of Hindu politics.

Like other communities, Syrian Christians too have been involved in regional politics on a community basis. In 1888, Travancore became the first princely state in India to establish a Legislative Council, which was reformed as the Sree Moolam Popular Assembly in 1904. A few Syrian Christian leaders were elected to the Legislative Council but there was resentment that their share of the available seats was proportionately less than that of other prominent castes. This resentment led to a series of campaigns for equal representation both in the legislature and in government positions...

By changing so, we are actually eliminating the chance of a potential misunderstanding that Syrian Christians are particularly related with the political violence and rise of Hindu politics. What do you think? - InarZan Verifiable 09:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me, although I would say "As with other communities, the Saint Thomas Christians have been involved ..." etc. The "too" is certainly redundant, and we should be using the STC name almost everywhere in this article, rather than "Syrian Christians". As a general rule, we use the term defined by the article title - there is a thread concerning this somewhere above. - Sitush (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Works for me too. On the naming issue, as I said here and probably elsewhere, we do need to use the term "Saint Thomas Christians" where possible. It is true that the Indian government and many other sources (especially in India) use the form "Syrian Christians". However, following that use would be very confusing in this article, it also discusses the wider Syrian Christian tradition of which the Indian community is part.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Let's use STC instead of Syrian Christian. Since we seem to have reached a consensus, I am moving forward with it. Thanks. -InarZan Verifiable 18:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well done! --AshLey ^Msg 10:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

J Devika

Just finished reading her article about Indulekha Hair Oil. I have read many of her other articles as well. I really wonder whether she is an RS. I know she is an associate professor in CDS, but it does not make her an authentic voice. Her writing style is that of an activist rather than of a social analyst. Frankly, she does not seem to have a NPOV. A good analytical study will be observations rather than accusations. - InarZan Verifiable 19:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Eh? We've just spent ages discussing a section that involves her. I used her because someone else (Ashley, probably) was citing her. In our usage, she is writing in conjunction with Varghese, which surely is a check on any excesses. There are tele-dons etc all over the world: just because they write some less academic pieces etc does not necessarily negate everything, and in any event they are always reliable for their own opinion. - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it happens so. I have previously read many articles by her (She writes in Malayalam too), but I was not aware that the source our article cites was written by this same Devika. She is a kind of so-called intellectual school who jumps upon any issue that pops up. Most of her behavior is like a politician who criticizes everything rather than that of an academic who just observes and analyzes happenings. I could never imagine that a history article can refer to her writings. Seems like me too shall start writing "academic" articles and get published them via someone or… yeah, I shall clean up my warehouse and hang a board on its wall, something like "Center for Historical and Archeological Study of India" so that later in WP, someone else can assume my works as RS and cite them as "source" :) - InarZan Verifiable 19:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)