Jump to content

Talk:Saint Thomas Christians/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Jewish descent, redux

I (re-)removed this, which was recently re-added without comment by a new editor here and subsequently re-added by Robin klein. Per the above discussion, there was no consensus to include that information in that section, as well as evidence that the source was being misused. To reiterate my comments from above, the material about Jewish descent is not really relevant to the paragraph, which is about the historical migration of Syrians and the related Thomas of Cana tradition. It's really time to move on.--Cúchullain t/c 19:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Robin klein initiated a discussion at DRN on 11 May but appears not to have notified those involved in what has gone on here beforehand. Well, until they notified me at 20:05 today. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
It was I who notified Sitush at 20:05 today. Yes I should have notified before. Also I have given complete quotes of the sources so that there would be no way of misuse of sources. thanks Robin klein (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you did. It was as near as dammit a week after you declared that you had notified me. And after you raising the issue at DRN you continued to insert the statements despite an apparent consensus here. You should have pursued further discussion here rather than keep up your antics.

By the way, I have just reverted what appears to be a single purpose account, per this edit. I have no idea who that new contributor may be but their efforts are not helpful to a resolution of this issue. You seem to think that I have accused you of sockpuppetry but I cannot determine where that might be. Feel free to open an investigation in your defence if you think that your reputation may have been slurred. I have no opinion on that matter and I cannot recall having one. Yes, some odd things have gone on but, hey, this is Wikipedia and the subject is religion: odd things are normal, if you can understand what I mean. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Much of Robin's behavior here over the last 6 months has been unproductive. It is a shame that someone who apparently has so much to offer insists on engaging in such disruptive behavior. On this particular issue it's clear no consensus exists to include this information in this section. Let's move on to other things.--Cúchullain t/c 18:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
So just looking at the dispute page, why is the Jewish aspect of this culture being so fervently diminished when the community en mass seems to believe otherwise? Seems like POV is sneaking in somewhere. PeRshGo (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Because, based on sources outside the church itself, Jewish descent is considered a legend, meaning WP:reliable sources say it's a legend, so it goes into article as a legend. There are other partly "Judaizing" (Pauline term not mine) groups in Christian history who have claimed Jewish ethnicity. We wouldn't reflect these claims as fact in any other article afaik, no matter how sincerely they might believe it. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
User:In ictu oculi states above that "Because, based on sources outside the church itself, Jewish descent is considered a legend, meaning WP:reliable sources say it's a legend, so it goes into article as a legend." Yes, User:In ictu oculi is right it should go into the article at least as a legend or CLAIM. The "Ramban song or legend" (the traditional legend of the Kerala syrian christian community) states that the very first people to be converted in the Malabar by apostle Thomas were Jewish people and then converted the local people. But the editors are stating in this article only the Claim regarding the conversion of local people as stated in the Ramban song. The editors are not allowing the mention of the Claim of Jewish conversion in Malabar by apostle Thomas as stated in the traditional Ramban song. thanks Robin klein (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Robin continues to misrepresent the dispute. The issue is that he is trying to insert/re-insert a claim of Jewish origins into a section on the apparent migration of Syrian Christians to India and the Thomas of Cana story. Some "Northists" do claim Jewish descent (and descent from Thomas of Cana), but this is not a universal claim, nor is it relevant to either the medieval migrations or the Thomas of Cana legend. Robin's use of the sources and their subsequent behavior has been highly problematic.--Cúchullain t/c 04:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Sitush removed passages that were new and that stated about the claim of the Syrian christians about the coming of St Thomas to malabar coast in order to convert Jews. How can you stop me from putting in new information with references. Also the statement of Eusebius is quoted in almost every article dealing with Saint Thomas christians. How do you prevent me from adding information that is referenced. thanks Robin klein (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC) All the information that I had added was already put up at WP:DRN. Why did you still remove it. It had been discussed. thanks Robin klein (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You still do not have consensus, at DRN or elsewhere. Your contribution was therefore disruptive, as many others to this article have been. Tbh, I suspect that the DRN thread has now died a death, as is often the way there when it comes to India-related stuff. It doesn't look as if we are going to get much (if any) outside input. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Edgar Thurston

"The community observes Lent, locally called The fifty days' fast, from Clean Monday to the day before Easter, abjuring all meat, fish and ghee."

"Immediately after a Child is born, a priest or male relative shouts in the child’s ear Maron Yesu Mishiha ( Jesus Christ is the Messiah ). The child would be fed with three drops of honey in which a little gold had been rubbed by his father and the mother is considered to be under pollution till the tenth day."

Both these sentences cite "Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Volume 1, Asian Educational Services, 1987, pp. 410–460, ISBN 81-206-0288-9" by Edgar Thurston.

I have three concerns:

  1. Is this book really an RS? How can we cite a century-old work to support some present day customs of the community? I am thinking of starting a thread in WP:RSN.
  2. The given page range is too much. Please narrow up the range.
  3. Is the work available online for verification? Can somebody give a link? If it is not available, I shall ask in WP:RX. --InarZan Verifiable 08:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Go to Edgar Thurston, an article largely written by me. There you will find links to his works online. Regarding reliability for modern practices: no, he is not and you do not need to go to RSN for that - there is a consensus across a wide spread of caste articles etc. In fact, he is not really reliable for much even in his own time. Like H. H. Risley etc, the man was a scientific racist. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If so, we should remove him from citations, and those sentences above too. - InarZan Verifiable 12:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

He should be removed as a source for any statement that concerns modern practices; for statements concerning his own time, it is possible that he is reliable for his own opinion but you need to bear in mind that his Castes and Tribes series was really a compendium of the opinions and investigations of others who preceded him. That is, some of the assertions made go back a lot further than a century, Bizarrely, the Anthropological Survey of India used him extensively in its "States series" of The People of India - no wonder the States series was dropped by Oxford University Press, then. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Tampering and deletion of Baum citation by ASHLEY Thomas80

The complete quotation from Baum citation that was put up by User:Cuchullain on 12th dec 2011 [1] and tampered on 14 dec 2011 by User:Ashley thomas80 [2] was restored on 31 May 2012. This has again been tampered and deleted by User:Ashley thomas80 [3]. The complete Baum citation put up by User:Cuchullain is "The subgroup of the Saint Thomas Christians known as the Southists trace their lineage to the high-born Thomas of Cana, while the group known as the Northists claim descent from Thomas the Apostle's indigenous converts who intermarried with Thomas of Cana's children by his concubine or second wife." Tampering of sources needs to be stopped 150.135.48.244 (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC) The quote was apparently a copyvio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.220.17.111 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I can verify that the Baum source does in fact say what I added back in December, and that it is not a copyright violation. Ashely, can you explain the removal?--Cúchullain t/c 15:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
That view is not a widely accepted one, especially by the wider spectrum of neutral historians. Actually, it's a propaganda by the Southists where as Northists version of the story tells that the Southists are the descendants of a native dhobi (washer) lady. They used to accuse each other in order to establish superiority. See the references below:
1. Vahan Hovhanessian: The Old Testament As Authoritative Scripture in the Early Churches of the East, Peter Lang, 2010, ISBN 9781433107351, pp.97-98
2. NSC Network: About Northist and Southist division :

The Northist version for the cause of the division is given in an old manuscript called Sloane MS, 2743 at the British Museum. The substance of the Northist version is that the Southists are descendants of those in Malabar (Cranganore) consequent to the arrival of Thomas Cana, who entered into marriage relations with the children of a native woman. This native woman was of the Mainatoo caste(Washer Women) who was a servant of Thomas of Cana. Other stories trace the origins of the Southists to a dobi, a washerwoman, whom Thomas of Cana took as concubine.

3.Benedict Vadakkekara - Origin of Christianity in India, pp.33-34, see the footnotes. --AshLey Msg 13:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're wrong. The view isn't accepted at all by "neutral historians", it's just a tradition, but it's a culturally important one. Baum and Winkler p. 52 indicate the descent from the Indian second wife or concubine of Thomas of Cana is claimed by the "Northists" themselves.[4] As to your sources, I can't read the first one. The second is not reliable and very poorly written, but that passage deals with the origins of the Southists, not the Northists. The source agrees with Baum & Winkler that the Southists claim descent from Thomas of Cana and his followers. It is not at all clear on what the Northists claim about themselves. Similarly, Vadakkekara (quoting Forrester) speaks about the Southists being descendents of the Syrians (specifically "Thomas of Cana and his Syrian wife or concubine"). It doesn't mention the traditional ancestry of the Northists.
The point of this paragraph is to discuss the apparent Syrian immigration and the associated story about Thomas of Cana. Generally speaking, the Southists claim descent from Thomas of Cana and the Syrian immigrants, while the Northists claim descent from Indian natives, with some claiming additional mixed ancestry from Thomas of Cana through an Indian partner. This is borne out in Baum and Winkler, as well as Stephen Neill (p. 193 and note[5]) and other sources such as [6][7][8] I don't see any reason to exclude this information.--Cúchullain t/c 15:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Cuchullain, I got Forrester and "nanzan-u.ac.jp". Neill - preview is not available for p.193 and footnote. Unable to get all others. Forrester says "...the Northists are descended from his 'India wife' or concubine fail to carry conviction...." However, the article of Swiderski covers all the stories related to Thomas of Cana. The contradictory nature of these stories is the major issue here. Even if, we are considering the Northist version of stories, one says Thomas of Cana and other upper class immigrants joined Northists while the attendants of him formed the faction of Southists. Another story just mentions the origin of Southists from a dhobi lady who was the concubine of Thomas of Cana(in this story also Thomas should have joined Northists). But, none of the Northist traditions in this article says that Northist claim descent from Thomas the Apostle's indigenous converts who intermarried with Thomas of Cana's children by his concubine or second wife. So we need to reword it to express the original views of Northists. Else, the version of Southists would be represented as the one of the Northists that we need to avoid. Moreover, these stories could be considered as fringe views (as Forrester infer) - the stories used by both the groups to assert their superiority. No doubt, the paragraph could mention the immigration and the claim of Southists on the lineage from Thomas of Cana, because it's their major claim. But for Northists, whether Thomas of Cana joined them or not is not a major question, everybody claims descent from St.Thomas's native converts. Baum's view is contradicted by all these stories, hence in my opinion, it's better to avoid the link between Northists and Thomas of Cana or else we may have to say different versions of the story. Another safe option is to follow Forrester: "There is a tradition that one Thomas of Cana, a Syrian merchant settled in Malabar in the 4th century with considerable number of fellow Christians and intermarried with the local people." This is the only portion common to all the contradictory stories related to him. --AshLey Msg 12:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, obviously, and I don't think you've made your case. It's obvious and verifiable that there's a tradition of Northist descent from Thomas of Cana; that's worthy of this brief mention in the paragraph on Thomas of Cana. The wording is as simple as I can think of. I will add the Neill and Swiderski cites if necessary, but the removing elements of a cited passage that don't happen to appeal to you won't work.Cúchullain t/c 15:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I've just seen the ANI report, the case against me. Actually I thought that clause was an insertion within the cited passage, that happened during multitude of IP-edits. OK, since you have WP:RS for this view, you could add it, but please try to balance it with other versions too. --AshLey Msg 15:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Cuchullain seems to be spot on here. Please note that if the "other versions" are not mainstream then they probably should not be included, but it does rather depend on how fringe-y and/or self-interested they appear to be.

I am pleased to see that the NSC has been deemed unreliable by Cuchullain but is that opinion just for this issue or is it a more general one? I think that I have already raised my own doubts regarding using the thing but, hey, this talk page is pretty long at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush's concern has to be addressed. Cuchullain, I request a clarification in this regard. Do you think Swiderski has listed all the views related to Thomas of Cana? If so which story leads to the conclusion that Baum has stated? Do you think Baum's view is the mainstream tradition of Northists? --AshLey Msg 07:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
You are deflecting and misrepresenting me yet again - this habit is becoming very tiresome. I have no concern regarding Baum. My concern was with regard to your suggestion regarding presentation of other views, and also a query directed at Cuchullain regarding the use of NSC. Now, please stop these machinations. - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
You got a new buzz word? Did I convey above that you have concerns regarding Baum? You have concerns regarding fringe views and I want to clarify - "which is the mainstream view". I req a clarification from Cuchullain because he has better idea in this regard. Actually I was to get this point clarified in his talkpage, but your interference made me to post it here (hence your name mentioned) --AshLey Msg 09:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have a new buzz word. You are well aware that it is one that has been applied to you by SpacemanSpiff, who is one of many experienced contributors who have expressed dis-satisfaction with your methods etc. Keep it up and you may be joining Robin klein. We cannot read the mind of Baum, nor do we need to do so. You are arguing for the sake of argument. Stop it. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I made my req to Cuchullain and he is the person to decide whether my query should be answered or not. I remember your threat in my talkpage to hound me, and I don't care bit you continuing it, even a "lifetime block" for your sake. I didn't ask you to read anybody's mind. Since I don't have his book, I made the query to one who has access to it. I won't req you to stop it...pls continue your antics. -AshLey Msg 12:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
For clarity, here is the diff of Spiff's comment. Also for clarity, I presume that this diff is the one where you think I threatened to hound you - there was a very good reason for what I said then and it applies as much now as it did three weeks ago. If you think that I am in fact hounding you then take it to ANI. Things are becoming too personalised here & I have been drawn into it yet again. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ashley, I'm not going to continue going back and forth with you. The fact remains that, by excising only the parts of the Baum & Winkler line you don't like without adding anything else, you are misrepresenting the source.

As to Swiderski, yes, much of that work compliments Baum & Winkler. Nearly all the accounts mentioned by Swiderski tie the division into Northists and Southists back to the Thomas of Cana story, which is important. The entire section from Pp. 76-80 discusses the tradition of Thomas of Cana's two wives. Pp. 80-83 discusses additional Northern takes on said story (these tend to claim the Northists as the upper class but generally don't dispute that the Southists are descended from Thomas). Much of the rest of the text discusses other variants on the two wives story along with different interpretations explaining the division. I'll add Swiderski as a cite and hopefully we'll be done with it.--Cúchullain t/c 13:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not asking to censor a part of it but to separate the Northist part from that sentence and to counter-balance it with mainstream tradition(I don't know whether I could call it so as my view may be biased and that's why wanted to know your opinion). My opposition is just against the words "second wife or concubine". As you said "Northern takes on said story (these tend to claim the Northists as the upper class but generally don't dispute that the Southists are descended from Thomas)". I totally agree with it but Swiderski,pp.80-83 describes that they claim this superiority by claiming maternal lineage of 1st wife and alleging the maternal lineage of Southists from "the same second wife or concubine". That's why, I appeal for a balancing action. Is it possible just by adding an extra citation? --AshLey Msg 14:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There are various stories, but the relevant versions relate to the two wives of Thomas of Cana. In toto these versions appear to be the most common. I think it's clear enough as it is.--Cúchullain t/c 15:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Ashley, WP:3O is for disputes between two people. In this case several other editors have already disagreed with you. This is beginning to look tendentious.--Cúchullain t/c 16:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Then how could I get the opinion of one more expert in the subject? --AshLey Msg 16:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
One of the beauties of Wikipedia is that we do not usually require experts in any particular field. We are a tertiary source and we rely on secondary sources. Those secondary sources are the "experts" (if they comply with WP:RS etc). All we do is research secondary sources, evaluate them and restate them. Consensus plays a large part in all of this.

WP:3O makes it clear that it is not a forum for disputes involving more than 2 people, right at the top. You need to rescind your request there, remove the tag from this section and (if you really do insist) start a discussion at, say, WP:DRN. The folks there most likely won't be experts, but nor was it particularly likely that someone who picked up on it at WP:3O would be. My advice to you would be not to bother with DRN because you are pretty hopelessly outnumbered here by the consensus and because in my experience it generally does not produce results for Indian caste/community articles. This particular class of articles generally is seen as a whole load of trouble by a lot of contributors and many avoid the subject area for that reason; DRN is a fairly new concept, is a microcosm of the wider community, and thus far has tended mostly to refer caste disputes back to the article talk pages. After referral, what often happens is that the person(s) who lack consensus become more frustrated, make more mistakes and end up getting blocked or even worse. But it is your choice, and this particular issue may prove to be the exception to the rule. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ashley, as I explained on my talk page, WP:3O is explicitly for disputes between two editors, and in this case there has been far more input than that. You may try the other avenues of dispute resolution if you wish.--Cúchullain t/c 19:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both for the guidance. 3O - req has already been rejected. So I wish to proceed for an Rfc. What do you think? --AshLey Msg 08:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think it's a great deal of time and effort to expend on one line in an article that has far more serious problems.--Cúchullain t/c 12:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Cuchullain, In a previous post you cited Stephen Neill to support the "Thomas of cana and two wives tradition". Now I got access to the corresponding page and the note in Neill's book (1) and I'm really surprised to see that it corroborates what I said in a previous comment ("I totally agree with it but Swiderski,pp.80-83 describes that they claim this superiority by claiming maternal lineage of 1st wife and alleging the maternal lineage of Southists from "the same second wife or concubine".) in Note-8, Neill states that "According to tradition Thomas of Knaya or Knayil had two wives; the first of them received his Northern estates, the second his Southern estates...." This is what I'm trying to establish from the beginning. None of the Northists doesn't trace the maternal lineage to "either second wife or concubine". I haven't seen the portion from Baum's book yet, but if it says so, it's wrong and contradicted by many sources such as Neill and many other sources that I have already cited. So a rewording of the clause related to "Northist lineage"(from 1st wife) citing Neill as reference will solve this dispute. What do you think? It's necessary because the status of a concubine is socially inferior in India and the statement from Baum is contemptuous of Northists. --AshLey Msg 13:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not at all clear what you're trying to establish. In fact I'm not sure you're even pursuing the same point you were before. Neill confirms the "two wives" tradition you're trying to excise and does not contradict Baum & Winkler on that point. Is your only problem the wording? There are ways to deal that beyond just cutting out clauses that are against your sensibilities.--Cúchullain t/c 14:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Baum & Winkler say, after discussing the Syrian migration and Southist claims of descent from it: "Each group ["Southerners" and "Northerners"] claims social superiority over the other. The Southerners maintain they are descended from the legitimate wife of Thomas of Cana, while the Northerners trace their lineage to an indigenous concubine or second wife, and both sides try to "prove" their positions in publications. The Northerners also draw on the tradition of the apostle and claim descent from Brahmins proselytized by Thomas". As I said above, Neill also discusses this "two wives" tradition as does Swiderski in substantial detail. Perhaps we can change the wording to "...while the group known as the Northists claim descent from Thomas the Apostle's indigenous converts; some additionally assert ancestry from Thomas of Cana through a second, Indian wife." That would remove the ostensibly offensive "concubine" reference while still maintaining the mention of Thomas of Cana and the Syrians, which is the actual subject of the paragraph.--Cúchullain t/c 15:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
We are not censored. If the sources refer to her as a concubine then that is what we should be reflecting. After all, a wife and a concubine are very different things. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, according to Swiderski the Northists don't generally assert "their" wife of Thomas was a concubine, this is more frequently something claimed by Southists as well as outsiders. In fact Northists have sometimes claimed the "Southist wife" was a concubine (in versions that don't tend to tie their own ancestry to Thomas). I think we're safe to remove the "concubine" part.--Cúchullain t/c 15:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I tried to convey you. My apologies if I failed to do so and wasted your precious time. Vahan Hovhanessian also states the same idea. --AshLey Msg 15:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Hm. If both sides make concubine statements about each other but do not avow it of their own then surely that is significant? If only from the perspective of legitimacy. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
In the individual articles, certainly, and possibly also in a dedicated section on the two groups, but we don't need to get into all that in the paragraph on the Syrian migration and the related Thomas of Cana tradition. The two sides say all kinds of things about themselves and each other, as do various outsiders, but not all of it is relevant to this section. If there are no objections I'll go ahead and institute my suggested change.--Cúchullain t/c 16:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Aye, Go on.........(If I again say "1st wife" is the major view, you may kick me out :)))) -AshLey Msg 16:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
It's "second" in the sense of "additional". "First wife" after discussing a different wife would make no sense, and "additional wife" is pretty awkward English. At any rate, the order of the wives/partners is hardly consistent or relevant. I'll make the change.--Cúchullain t/c 16:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Brahmin descent tradition/myth

Most Syrian Christian's still claim a Brahminical origin of sorts and this is reflected in popular literature and articles, from Arundathi Roy's God of Small things to a recent New York Times Article written by a professor in Stanford, to name only a few instances. In fact I have not read of the Jewish origin belief or myth expressed in any of the literature I have read written by Syrian Christians. Genetic scholars and historians may dismiss this as unsubstantiated myth. However whether it is a myth or not, the Brahmin conversion hypothesis is often repeated claimed belief and seems to me entrenched in the community, and some mention of this prevailing and pervasive belief should be mentioned, especially as it written in most high profile literature written in the community and because the existence of such a claim is in itself of noteworthy interest in understanding the community. I suggest that a sentence of the form: 'Syrian Christians have historically claimed to be of Brahminical origin, and portrayed as such in literature- such as in Roy's God of Small Things'- even though historical proof is wanting." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.48.168 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, please. It will bring more disgrace than any pride. Out there, every Tom, Dick and Harry have started claiming either Brahmanical or Kshatriya connections, all of which were terribly disproved to their embarrassment. There is nothing to be proud of in a Brahmanical connection. History of Brahmins is notorious for their atrocities towards other communities. Everyone know that Brahmins became rich by exploiting the Dalits for centuries. On the other hand, STCs became rich in honest and virtuous way; by their trade and agriculture. The major difference between STCs and Brahmins: Brahmins acquired wealth from respect; STCs acquired respect from wealth.
There is a saying in Malayalam that "An elephant does not know its own size." Many STCs are like elephant, they do not know their own greatness. This is why they try to connect themselves to other groups, whom they think to be great. US based STCs try to claim a Jewish heritage, since the US people have a respect towards Jewish blood. Kerala based STCs on the other hand try to claim Brahmin blood, since the Nairs and Ezhavas here respect Brahmins. We should learn to stand on our own feet. Be proud of what we are. We are far better than many other so-called upper castes. We don’t need to lean to any "eerkkilee" castes like Nambudiris. - InarZan Verifiable 18:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear User:InarZan I agree with you. One more point, Scholars have noted that the reason why St Thomas the apostle came all the way to the Malabar coast is to specifically convert the Jews. There is lot of WP:RS (peer reviewed academic papers) for this. It is absurd not to mention the reason as to why Apostle Thomas would go all the way to Kerala. That has to be addressed. thanks Robin klein (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Robin, I don't think that I have ever said this to anyone on Wikipedia but, "for fuck's sake" is what I am thinking right now. I am very, very close to asking that you receive a topic ban from this and related articles, per the sanctions that are in place. Can you not give it a rest?

InarZan, what has "more disgrace than any pride" got to do with anything? It is true that this article has been and in some respects probably still is a puff piece, driven by contributors with a conflict of interest, but that statement of yours is not based on any interpretation of our neutrality policies of which I am aware. I have no opinion regarding the IP's comment, but yours is a great display of just why this article has been a mess in the past. If you truly believe it then you, too, should probably not be contributing here. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason why some people are trying to come up with half boiled stories like St. Thomas of 1st century baptizing Brahmins who came here many centuries after, blah, blah.. is that they think this will bring some additional reputation to the community. I am also an STC, but I don’t believe in these self-glorification attempts. There is nothing wrong for me having a point of view, unless my contributions (if any!!!) reflect it.

Robin, are you saying that St. Thomas baptized only Jews?

“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16)

Was he unaware of this? - InarZan Verifiable 19:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm an admin who happened across this, and I'm going to try to keep this brief. InarZan and Robin klein, I'm sorely tempted to just indefinitely topic ban both of you for impeding progress on this article. As it is, your gross failure to even attempt to adhere to a neutral point of view is a major problem, and if you seriously cannot see what's wrong with your comments above (as Sitush elucidated quite well) that's a sign you should step away from this and not come back. If you make any further comments like those above or make further efforts to maintain the puffery in this article, I have absolutely no problem tossing out article bans. Can you hear me now? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Admin, would you mind explaining why you should think of putting a topic ban on me? Have I engaged in any disruptive editing, personal attacks or edit wars, anything? You mentioned WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which as far as I know applies to those editors who have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input. Here what brings me under this guideline? Which viewpoint I am keeping against any reached consensus? - InarZan Verifiable 20:22, 24 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 Brahmans. 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 Brahmin decent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.139.4 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.139.4 (talk)

St. Thomas

Montage or not, can we really include St. Thomas amongst St. Thomas Christians? The connection between the apostle and these Christians is tenuous, at best. Based on available historical data I suggest removing that portrait from the montage. --regentspark (comment) 16:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Cúchullain t/c 17:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Me, too. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Please remove. I raised a similar query in the contributors talk page: User_talk:Jogytmathew, but no response yet. Whether St. Thomas evangelized here or not is one question which we can't answer with any historical records. But the apostle was not an STC in ethnicity. --AshLey Msg 09:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nasrani Qurbana?

Is there anything called Nasrani Qurbana or Nasrani Rite? The article uses terms like "Nasrani Qurbana", "Nasrani Baptism", etc. I am wondering whether anything like those exist. As far I know, Nasranis do not have any distinct Liturgy or Rite which can be called "Nasrani Qurbana". Historically they followed Eastern Syriac Rite which they adopted from Church of the East. The phrases like this may be misleading that Nasranis have their own Rite and Liturgy, for which there is no evidence. - InarZan Verifiable 08:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It's quite unnecessary to prefix "nasrani" in these cases (Qurbaba and Baptism). --AshLey Msg 11:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

These type of things happen because most of these history are created in 20th or 21 st century. From Coonen Cross on wards the RomoSyrians used a heavily latinized form of Eastern liturgy. They got changed it in 21st century only. The So called Syrians or Puthen koottukar used the original eastern liturgy until 18th century which later slowly changed to Antichene liturgy. We cannot forget about the Latinized liturgy of RomoSyrians for the last 400 years and simply boasting that we used Eastern liturgy. Last 400 years is also a part of the history. The Romosyrians never used a veil in the Madbaha,Their priests never used colourful vestsments for a few centuries. Their churches are not built with Madbaha on the eastern facing nor they face eastwards for prayer. THESE WERE FOLLOWED BY MALANKARA CHURCHES AND CHALDEAN CHURCH OF THE EAST. ALSO SYRO MALANKARA CHURCH FOLLOWED IT. But if you claim that thse all things were followed by SYRO-MALABAR church, it is simply nothing other than creating history. I have seen services of Syro-Malabar church from 1975 on wards. WhyI said this beacause there is no unity in practices of the Malankara churches and Syro Malabar church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.139.4 (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Syria and Division diagram

1) The image given in the division section is too small. Unless one can read the text in it, it is useless. Make it bigger, pls.

2) Why on earth this article should contain a flag of Arabic Republic of Syria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.221.56.83 (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Putting photos regarding-

Please put photos of popular people. Please remember that this not a ROMAN CATHOLIC portal. I never heared about vargese payapilly; may be roman catholics know about him through their religious classes. Include only well known persons of all denominations. Please donot try to make unfamous popular through these sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.139.4 (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Support: You have a point here. But, it's not a case of Roman Catholic upper-hand. Somebody from Payapilly family repeatedly posts it there, and even anonymously. I think we need a semi-protection for this page to avoid ip-edits. Invite suggestions for a better replacement.--AshLey Msg 13:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear User:Ashley_thomas80, the picture that most need to be pit up is that of Verghese Kurien, the father of the white revolution in India. He is probably the most famous Malabar Nasrani in Modern India. Could you please get a picture of him from some where. I have no source to get his picture. thanks Robin klein (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, my thoughts were also in that direction. I'll try, but need some time. --AshLey Msg 13:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I strongly agree with all of you. It has nothing to do with Roman Catholic, since non-catholics such as Parumala Thirumeni and Oommen Chandy are shown. But there are many Saint Thomas Christians who are more famous than those who are shown in the infobox. I have never heard of Varghese Payapilly or Thomas Kailath. We need to make a Collage of famous STCs and upload it to Commons.

File:Irish people collage2.jpg File:Armenian people.JPG

We need to have something like these. We need a really big collage with 20 to 30 people. Having more famous people in an ethnic group is an indication of the group's prominence and forwardness. Many other communities such as Viswakarma or Dheevara do not have enough prominent people to be included. But Saint Thomas Christians have more than enough. - InarZan Verifiable 17:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Collages are rubbish and are gradually being weeded out of Indian community articles, partly because there are often issues embedded within them re: copyights/permissions etc and partly because any selection gives undue weight to those who are selected. They are often also puffery: selecting the great and the good can easily deteriorate further into selecting the "best looking" and suchlike. I would argue that there should be no personalised images at all in the infobox, and it is an opinion that has been generally accepted in the past. If that means no image at all then so be it. If we must have a collage then perhaps we could have one showing the primary church buildings for each group, shown in alphabetical order by name of the building. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Sitush, it was none other than you who took away all the collages from Indian communities articles. Why they are being kept in many other good quality articles such as Germans, Italians, Irish people, Armenians, etc. Everything on Wikipedia works on consensus. So we can very well reach in a consensus regarding most notable 30 Saint Thomas Christians. If some disputes arise, we have enough room for discussions and alterations. We have best image editing softwares available, right? We are free to add and remove any component image anytime. That is not a valid reason man. No use with church images since it is about an ethnic group, not about church architecture. - InarZan Verifiable 20:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have removed some, but so have other people. With consensus at article level, and after discussions concerning the principle that involved wider community (can't remember where, but probably WT:INB or the template talk page). Indian community articles seem to be particularly prone to puffery, COI quality issues etc, which is one reason why the general sanctions were imposed.

I have had no involvement in any of the other articles to which you refer and so cannot comment on them. There is no requirement that an image appears in an infobox. In fact, there is no requirement that infoboxes are used at all and I recall seeing somewhere that in fact they are not used in the vast majority of articles.

Please note that one inevitable requirement is that any montage here would have to contain an equal number of images representing people from each of the SC denominations. Also, that issues of WP:BLP breaches could be more tricky than normal: we cannot state religious belief/ethnicity of living people without verification that they self-identify with the statement. The whole thing is an absolute minefield. - Sitush (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

For ethnic group, self certification is not a criteria.(Technically). Also, equal representation for every denomination is not practical here. --AshLey Msg 08:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. There is consensus that self-identification is necessary. That can be found at numerous threads on WT:INB - eg: here - and it also forms a part of WP:BLPCAT. If you disagree then you will have to get the policy changed. Based on discussions at wikimeets as well as various articles here, I don't think that you will get very far with that. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don’t you try to find some mature arguments against the inclusion of a collage? From where did you learn that images of prominent people should contain equal number of people from each denomination? Different STC churches are of different sizes, some are large and some are small. Therefore it is really absurd to think there will be equal number of prominent people from each sect. How do you think Syro-Malabar Church with a population of 3,947,396 and Malabar Independent Syrian Church with an approximate population of 10,000 can have equal number of prominent people? Also what is the need for it ? Who insists so? Why it is an inevitable requirement? If you are asked to make a list of 50 prominent Americans, will you insist that each of them being from each of the 50 states of America? This is really a childish argument, man. Not acting anything for the fear of future possible puffery is not a good habit for a Wikipedian, since Wikipedia tells us to be Bold. Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline for perfection. May be some Hindu caste articles may be prone to puffery / self-glorification, but generalizing it and saying like all Indians are doing puffery is at all not desirable. Do you know that something is considered puffery only when it is not verifiable. - InarZan Verifiable 08:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No need to rant, AshLey Inarzan (sorry, got my names mixed up). The need for some sort of balance is WP:WEIGHT, and indeed underlies the very first message in this thread. I am well aware that there are various measures by which the weight can be determined: my point was, you will have to use one and stick with it. You should have noticed that I did not link to WP:PUFF, and I omitted to do that because (a) it is not even a guideline and (b) there is a more general use of the term. The Puffery article, which concerns its usage in the legal sense, is not far off the mark for the general sense also. That you, Robin and AshLey all appear to be STCs only makes the issue more likely to raise its head.

I am happy to take this image issue back to WT:INB for a wider opinion, should that prove necessary. The issues are quite specific to Indian articles for the reasons I stated earlier, and WP:OSE will be as pertinent here as it was in the recent RfC that caused India-related articles to be devoid of Indic scripts in lead sections etc even though, for example, China-related articles continue to use non-Roman scripts. - Sitush (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC).

BTW, I did not say that all the articles are prone to puffery. This one has been, however. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"can't remember where, but probably WT:INB or the template talk page."

I shall tell you. It was not in WT:INB, but here. Your discussion was about the Template:Infobox caste only, not about Indian community articles in general. The article Saint Thomas Christians does not come under the scope of that discussion since it does not contain a Caste Infobox. The Caste infobox cannot be used here since it is designed for Hindu castes and many of its attributes such as varna, jati, gotra, veda, kula_daivat, kula_devi , guru, mantra, nishan, etc are not applicable to STCs. Instead, since this article treats STCs as an ethnic group, like other articles on ethnic groups such as Germans, Italians, Irish people, Armenians, etc; Saint Thomas Christians too uses Template:Infobox ethnic group . So if you have concerns over the inclusion of Collages in ethnic group infobox, you shall raise the issue on its talk page. "Back to WT:INB"? Please don't try to mislead others, you have not raised it there before.

But I can see, even in your previous discussion, nobody other than a single editor seems to be supporting your argument for exclusion of montages.

Sitush, you seem to have serious problems regarding your comprehension of WP policies. WP:WEIGHT is all about different viewpoints on a given subject. Viewpoints, did you understand? It has nothing to do with sub-sects among a group. Why don’t you consider going back and reading about it now? Verifiable claims are not considered puffery, whether in legal sense or in WP sense.

Read below:

(From article Puffery) The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defined puffery as a "term frequently used to denote the exaggerations reasonably to be expected of a seller as to the degree of quality of his product, the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined."

(From guideline Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Puffery) "...Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information."

This is why I am saying that you need to find some time to read all WP policies and guidelines once again.

@Ashley: Let us make a list of prominent Saint Thomas Christians. I shall suggest some of them, others suggest whom you think to be included. Firstly, we shall make a huge list from which we will select best 30 people via discussion and consensus. One thing, we will first suggest who need to be considered. Only after a long list been made, we shall discuss on who need to be excluded.

My suggestions:

  1. Gheevarghese Mar Gregorios of Parumala -OK
  2. Paremmakkal Thoma Kathanar - No pic available
  3. Abraham Malpan - Image quality issue
  4. Saint Alphonsa -OK
  5. Kuriakose Elias Chavara -OK
  6. Accamma Cherian -OK
  7. Anna Chandy -OK
  8. Ponkunnam Varkey - No pic available
  9. Muttathu Varkey - No pic available
  10. Thachil Mathoo Tharakan - No pic available
  11. P. T. Chacko - No pic available
  12. P.C. Alexander - OK
  13. K. C. Mammen Mappillai - No pic available
  14. Verghese Kurien - No pic available
  15. E. C. George Sudarshan - No pic available (Much needed)
  16. Oommen Chandy -OK
  17. A. K. Antony -OK
  18. K. M. Mani - No pic available
  19. T. M. Jacob - I'm Doubtful
  20. Cherian Philip - Not much popular
  21. Sarah Joseph (author) - No pic available
  22. Abu Abraham - No pic available
  23. Toms - No pic available(needed)
  24. P. J. Antony - We don't have a source to prove his ethnicity
  25. Arundhati Roy - Need concensus, since her father is a bengali
  26. Shiny Abraham - - No pic available (Much needed)
  27. Abey Kuruvilla - No pic available
  28. Anju Bobby George - No pic available(Much needed), also need source
  29. Tinu Yohannan - OK
  30. Johnson (composer) -OK
  31. Innocent (actor) - OK
  32. Kunchacko Boban - OK
  33. John Abraham (actor) -Need concensus, since his mother is a Parsi
  34. Nayantara - No pic available
  35. Asin Thottumkal - OK

More suggestions? - InarZan Verifiable 12:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am taking this to WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
@Inarzan: Many of them haven't any free image. I have marked against your suggestions.
@Sitush, Sitush I went through the discussion you cited above: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 49. It's a 7:5 support in the case of "self identification" and can't be treated as a consensus in this regard. We have to follow WP:EGRS and WP:BLP, but not any other filtering criteria based on this "rough consensus". --AshLey Msg 13:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
We shall find more images. Btw, Ashley, could you please give your opinion here? - InarZan Verifiable 13:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as I said earlier, I have raised it at WT:INB as a general principle, although it has been raised previously. AshLEy, I have no idea what thread you were looking at, but the BLP self-verification section is actually AnimeshKulkarni vs "the world". And that contributor did not come up with a single valid policy-based argument & so even their objection does not count.

I've skimmed through the list above: it is chock-full of problems, eg: how can you possibly tag Anna Chandy as "OK"? - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Inarzan, I deliberately ignored that post. Anyway I will brief my opinion there.
Sitush, AnimeshKulkarni Vs World issue was not "self-identification" but WP:V or WP:OR. The conditional-supports and conditional-opposes depict the theme very well. Anna Chandy is not a living person, and I think there are some sources. --AshLey Msg 15:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:V and WP:OR are connected to WP:BLP in this instance, and the thread says that time and again. Now stop being so tendentious: your insistence upon reading things absolutely literally, here and elsewhere, is becoming a nuisance and achieves little if anything, You appear unable even to count in this instance, so perhaps it is that you are tired or something. As for Chandy, I didn't say that she was alive: I said that it is an example of the problems in the list. You have said that it is "OK". Why? When I checked a few minutes ago there was no verification in the linked article that she was a Christian, let alone a STC? There is an unsourced statement in the infobox, sure, but that is useless. This is exactly the type of issue that I raised earlier. Has my eyesight suddenly gone AWOL? Or am I just becoming increasingly frustrated by your antics? Or am I in fact correct? - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
With the article named as Saint Thomas Christians all the people shown would need to be practicing christians. This need not be the case if the article is named as Malabar Nasrani, as only membership to the ethnic Malabar Nasrani community would suffice.

Here are few names that could be considered for the collage/info box pic:

  1. Verghese Kurien - father of white revolution in India
  2. E. C. George Sudarshan - several times nominated for Nobel Prize in physics
  3. A. K. Antony - here we run into problem. He is an atheist so he is not a Saint Thomas Christian (as he is not practicing christian) but he is definitely a Nasrani as he belongs to the Nasrani ethnic community. So an article name Malabar Nasrani is more appropriate than STC. With an article name of STC all the people shown would need to be practicing christians. This need not be the case if the article is named as Malabar Nasrani. Because only membership to the ethnic group would suffice.
  4. Thomas Kailath - Stanford Univ
  5. John Abraham (actor) - again, he belongs to the Nasrani community but don't know whether he is STC (practicing)
  6. Arundhati Roy - Yet again, she is a Nasrani but don't know whether she is a practicing STC. I know people make a noise about her being called Nasrani as she has a bengali father. But the she was/is listed in the info pic box of the article Malayali. That sounds double standard. Because if she could be listed as a prominent Malayali then why not Nasrani.
  7. Gheevarghese Mar Gregorios of Parumala
  8. Abraham Malpan
  9. Saint Alphonsa
  10. Anna Chandy
  11. P.C. Alexander
  12. K. C. Mammen Mappillai
  13. Oommen Chandy
  14. Shiny Abraham
  15. Abey Kuruvilla
  16. Anju Bobby George
  17. Tinu Yohannan
  18. Johnson (composer)
  19. Kunchacko Boban
  20. Asin Thottumkal

There are two members of German Parliament and the n0.1 ranked English badminton player you might want to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritofyuva (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks Robin klein (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Robin, We have already discussed(Talk on Merge) to reach a consensus on STC/Nasrani issuue, and concluded that both the terms are synonymous. Nasrani also means Christian in Arabic/Hebrew and hence it's not an excuse to use as ethnic name. Let's leave this issue here. In, general, there is no issue in listing a non-practicing Christian as STC, as the article deals the STC as a "caste" /"ethnic group" also. However, if we have splendid images, it's better to avoid such non-practicing persons to avoid further controversies, challenges and edit-wars.(Note that we can't avoid the mess even if we use the name, Nasrani). Also, we have to ensure that the information regarding person's ethnicity(STC) is verifiable (WP:V, WP:RS) and also the image should be free.

A. J. John, Anaparambil(non-free image), T. M. Varghese(No image available) also could be considered.

@Sitush, Yes, the thread has discussion related to WP:V & OR & BLP. Did I deny it? I said that the discussion was not about self-identification and also there was no real consensus to stress for self-identification. Consensus was there to ensure WP:V & WP:RS before categorizing a notable person into a 'caste'. WP:BLP also only suggests this much, except in the case of religion and sexual orientation. But here we are dealing with ethnic groups or castes and the most relevant policies are WP:EGRS and WP:BLPCAT. Both of these policies do not stress for "self-identification" in the case of ethnic-group categorization. You may request for a specific policy for Indian-Caste, if you want to enforce your view on India-related articles. If your concern is that the religion of a person could be assumed from the caste-name, it is not always correct as in the case Nadar and also it's not India-specific, as in the case of Jews where we may assume the religion from the name of the ethnic group. In the Anna Chandy case, I told that there are WP:RS to cite, but I didn't say it's already cited in the WP article. We may have a communication gap. You please stop attacking personally, and try to comprehend the issues before jumping the gun. I'm not really happy with your rouge talk (tendentious, antics, nuisance). Anyway wish you a wonderful holiday, come back cool. Try to respect difference of opinion! --AshLey Msg 08:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on including a collage or not, but Robin's suggestion is more of the same obfuscation of the material they've been pushing for months here. We have already established that in the Indian context, the sources use the terms "Nasrani", "Saint Thomas Christian," etc. interchangeably. They are synonyms for the same group of people. There is no sufficient basis for the ideosyncratic claim that "Nasrani" is the "ethnic" name while "Saint Thomas Christian" is the "religious" name, and therefore altering the article's scope to skirt a guideline is a wash. Whether this is the result of deliberate manipulation or simple incomprehension of the material and the relevant policies, such behavior is disruptive.Cúchullain t/c 17:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There are St.Thomas Christian denominations which are bigger and smaller in numbers.How ever when putting the photos, please put the photos of famous people irrespective of the denomination. There are better eligible people than varghese payapilly and thomas kailath( I never know who they were!!). Include photos from different spheres of life;like religious, cultural,business, science, social work etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.139.4 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

AshLey, did you read the content that is linked within the discussion at WT:INB? Specifically, this thread? Did you really understand what Andy the Grump, Qwryxian etc were saying regarding BLPCAT etc? That Mike Lynch, utcursch and other highly experienced contributors to the India-related sphere also think that BLPCAT etc applies? Do you want to turn this into a WP:RfC? It has been discussed to death already and I'll continue to provide links if you want, but suspect that you will dismiss them because the discussions will involve the same people, over and over again. I was not on holiday, btw, but thanks. Using chainsaws while hanging from a rope 90 feet (27 m) up a tree is no fun! - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, BLPCAT applies, but not "self-identification": We can't impose it in the case of ethnicity as the policy doesn't have such a clause. I support the ethical aspect of your demand, but before implementing it, we should include it in the related WP policies. Many editors have bracketed ethnicity and caste with religion, but it's not like that in the concerned WP:Policies (BLPCAT, EGRS). So, if there is enough support to change the policy to impose self-identification in the case of ethnicity, you start the process and I'm with you. But the enforcement of "a rough local consensus"(though ethically correct), in a limited set of articles is not acceptable. --AshLey Msg 06:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It is if it has consensus. Sure, consensus is based on policy and in this instance the policy-based arguments as to why BLPCAT is extensible to ethnicity has been clearly argued time and again. It seems that you agree with that also, so we have a done deal here. Amitabh Bachchan is a classic case of why we need to apply the policies to ethnicity. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is limited to India related articles only and not a comprehensive one for this particular case of "self-identification". If the additional clause of BLPCAT/religion is required to be extended to BLPCAT/ethnicity, a wider consensus in the global platform is required. --AshLey Msg 11:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Pathetic. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WHY SYRIAN KNANAYA CHURCH PHOTO IS POSTED HERE? DO THE KNANAYAS ARE ST.THOMAS CHRISTIANS?

@Sitush: OK you are hesitant to proceed for a global consensus; At least post your opinion here: WP:VPP --AshLey Msg 07:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not hesitant to do anything or to do nothing. It is your failure to accept the consensus that is already in place and your desire to split something into multiple threads at multiple forums that I find to be pathetic. This could all have been over by now, but instead it will drag on for ages and I pretty much guarantee you will result in no consensus at EGRS, even though it already has consensus elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
What consensus you are telling? I don't see any comprehensive agreement in any of the talks you mentioned.Please don't mix-up the consensus in the requirement of "reliable source" with a more complex issue of self-identification. I admit, some experienced editors are in support of the requirement of self-identification. See this talk: But a few others like Joyson Prabhu, Redtigerxyz and Animeshkulkarni oppose the so-called consensus. On the other side, AshLin clearly says that "..listing of names of prominent personalities from a community may be permitted in articles on specific caste/community" and Anbu121 also appears to support the inclusion of notable persons in the Caste-pages. Hekerui says "The existing BLP sourcing and category policies are sufficient, as they allow any user to fix problems with individual articles - no extra proposition is necessary." Even though Lynch7 support the idea of self-identification, he attributes his opinion to BLPCAT, but he fails to state how the policy could be applied for self-identification. Moreover, the discussion and poll has no formal output; given as Neutral. How could you enforce such a complex issue of "self-identification" on the basis of this confused discussion. Even "Sitush" says "aye" for the opinion that "this poll is invalid in any case, as it proposes a violation of policy, which cannot be decided here". So where it should be decided? On the global platform? That's why I proposed a a new clause in the concerned policies and there you really frustrated me with this comment:"This may well be an India-specific problem, and it is extremely complex in that sphere due to things such as the use of ethnic names and a general acceptance that even "reliable sources" are often not terribly reliable at all, but the proposer has been trying to assert that it needs consensus at a higher level than the WP India project. .....Given my limited work outside the India sphere I would not be too fussed if this proposal failed here, provided that any consensus reached at WT:INB in relation to India articles can be accepted by the wider community."

So in WP:INB you said that the existing policies already ensures self-identification etc for caste, while in WP:VPP you says that the issue is India specific and even if the policy has no such clause, you could do it with the "consensus" in WP:INB. What is your stand? You want to ensure self-identification for mentioning one's caste anyway, but how - based on WP:Policy or INB:Consensus? At present, WP:Policies have no exclusive clause to ensure it. On the other hand, INB:Consensus has no formal output(WP:CLOSE)). Some editors agree in an opinion it's not a consensus.(WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:CCC, Sitush, please stop being manipulative; it won't give any sustainable gains other than a feeling of disapproval.--AshLey Msg 10:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As with your previous miscount, you are misrepresenting both myself and other people. In fact, I have now lost count of the number of times you have misrepresented me and may have to start a list. You are also either not reading or deliberately ignoring things. Now let's settle this where it should be settled, which is WT:INB (since your proposal at WP:VPP looks certain to get nowhere). I am getting fed up of the wikilawyering that goes on with practically every article that you touch, but if needs must then I will keep on challenging you. I think that you really would benefit from editing many more articles outside the STC sphere, and thus gain a wider perspective of India-related issues and the consensuses that exist but, of course, that is just my opinion and if you insist on having every tiniest detail dotted and crossed because you cannot see the obvious then that is the way we will go. The discussions in this sphere are usually chaotic (one Indian contributor told me last year that chaos is normal in India!), and your approach is making them more so. So be it. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
In WP:VPP, majority editors are moving against the self-identification proposal. So, we can't ensure self-identification within the policy framework -(BLPCAT or EGRS). I think, a way out is to make a comprehensive consensus in WP:INB in this regard. Of course, there should be a poll and also we need to close the discussion with a proper, unambiguous comment from an administrator. Maximum participation of interested parties should be ensured. However, we should be aware of these restraints - WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:CCC. --AshLey Msg 08:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It has been explained to you by numerous people that this India-specific issue can be delegated, as was the case with Indic scripts. Please stop this obfuscation. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I have rev the last action of Sitush. I don't see any clear consensus to remove the photo montages from all the articles related to Indian caste. Inarzan, Bill and myself support using montages while you, regent, animesh and Lynch are against. What a silly form of consensus!!! We need more participation and a formal output.(WP:CLOSE))--AshLey Msg 12:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
That is because you do not understand consensus. Now please self-revert. If you have a problem then you need to raise it in the discussion at WT:INB, not here. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's wait for the output at WT:INB. If it's in the direction that you suggest, I'll also join you to remove montages from other articles. --AshLey Msg 13:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Please do not. There is no need for zealatory and I have no intention of rushing round deleting the things. Just as with the Indic script situation, it is best to do so just as you come across them because, believe me, the fallout that you will have to handle on your own talk page and that of the relevant articles is likely to be significant. You simply do not have the experience to handle it and your apparent connection to a specific ethnic group might work against you. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have again removed the montage. The consensus in the WT:INB discussion is as clear as day. Please let this be the end of the matter, at least until/if consensus changes. And to do that would require taking things to another level via dispute resolution. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've initiated an RFC there. Let's wait! Howevee, do you have any objection to include the images of 'Saints or Beatified' people in the info-box montage as it won't attract any blp, identification issue. -AshLey Msg 08:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Your RfC is a waste of everyone's time: the consensus is already clear and you need to get to grips with that. since the consensus is no montages of people, yes, I object to the saints etc. They are scarcely representative of the wider community, after all. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy must be included. Who cares if she's not a practicing STC? We are an ETHNO-religious group. I'm an atheist but when I go to Kerala, I'm identified as a Nasrani because that's my community background. Also her book God of Small Things did so much to tell Kerala's complex story. People in the west especially know about Kerala because of her. Who cares if her father is Bengali? We have to get over this patriarchal nonsense which says you are whatever your father is. She grew up in Kerala and her take on Nasranis is not what Nasranis wanted to read about themselves but what they needed to read about themselves. - J.Chacko

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.0.90.106 (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Introduction

Hi, I don't usually write Wikipedia articles so I'm not much in tune with the protocols. But as an associate professor of Indian history at a university in Israel, and having written a thesis paper on the immigration to Medieval Kerala, especially concerning the multiple mappila communities, and being of Half-Syrian Christian and Half-Cochin Jewish descent, I would think I am somewhat an expert on this topic. They are firstly an ethno-religious group. Organizing with a hereditary patriarch is not as much importance as their varied ancestry; rise to influence; fall in influence and current situation- ie, culture, language, position in society. how they were attempted to be brought under the catholic church is not as important as the fact that they were. considering these, i have proposed this alternative paragraph. these issues were better addressed in the original Syrian Malabar Nasrani article. I spent quite a bit of time crafting this. I hope it also better answers everyone's questions about their ancestry which is a mixture of early jewish, syriac christian, and other middle eastern christians significantly mixed with the local populace. two important factoids that i remember was a record I remember reading of a story where a particular Hindu become a Syrian priest; also, the jewish and christian communities were heavily interlinked with regards to the knanaya community. christianity and judaism were treated as branches of the same faith. the rest of the nasranis other than the knanaya also had jewish ancestry though to a lesser extent. everyone has local indian ancestry. the prevalence of the jewish ancestry and features is more predominant in coastal regions where the jewish and nasrani traders settled and had self-governing communities.


The Saint Thomas Christians, also variously known as Syrian Christians, Malabar Nasrani, or Malankara Christians, are an ethno-religious group from Kerala, India. It refers to those who converted to Christianity in its earliest days from the Jewish diaspora, and other local communities in Southern India. Their numbers were vastly supplemented by Syriac Christian immigrants who migrated in the later centuries. According to tradition, they trace their origins to the evangelical activity of Thomas the Apostle who arrived on the shores of Kerala in 52 AD, established eight churches along the Periyar river, and was later martyred in Mylapore, India in 72 AD.

Their historic relationship with the Church of the East, then centered in Sassanid Persia developed from occasional contact to full communion; resulting in the church being organised as the Ecclesiastical Province of India in the 8th century. By the 9th century, with their numerical and financial strength, increasing influence and claim to Brahmin heritage, the community attained upper-caste status and extensive political rights from the local Rajas. The arrival of the Portuguese in the 16th century, and their subsequent attempt to bring the community under the Roman Catholic Church, led to internal conflict which resulted in a dramatic decline in influence.

The Saint Thomas Christians are considered a single ethnic group and the largest forward-caste in Kerala by the Indian government, though they belong to multiple Christian denominations. They follow a unique Hebrew-Syriac Christian tradition and culture, with significant Hindu and colonial influences. Their historical and liturgical language is Syriac, though most use Malayalam, the local language of the region. Well known as a prominent business community in Kerala, they were historically associated with spice trade and are now largely plantation and big business owners, with a reputation for public service in the bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritofyuva (talk • contribs) 12:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for raising the issue here. Firstly, Wikipedia depends on verifiability using reliable sources. A consequence of this is that it generally doesn't matter who you are or what you may do in real life. We also have a policy of neutrality and in the event that there are different reliably sourced opinions, for example, then we would usually show them all. Finally, lead sections summarise an article and thus we should not say something in the lead section that is not already sourced in the article body.

I realise that this is a lot of blue links to policies etc for you to read through but you'll gain much from them and then can perhaps reformulate your point above by, for example,. providing some sources. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I obviously understand that. That's why all the facts that I mentioned were already mentioned in the article below or the previous/current iteration of the introduction. i was just saying my personal credentials to help answer the other questions raised here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritofyuva (talk • contribs) 12:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

i checked again. everything i said is mentioned in the same article. except for potentially the word 'financial'. i just googled and found a citation worthy article for that http://nasrani.net/2011/03/07/nazrani-christians-and-the-social-processes-of-kerala/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritofyuva (talk • contribs) 12:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


Hello Spiritofyuva, I typed the following msg before seeing Sitush's comment. So kindly ignore redundancy.I have no disrespect of your studies. But, here we need citation from reliable secondary sources to include anything in wikipedia, especially in articles related to ethnic groups and religion. It would be better if you go through WP:V,WP:RS and WP:NPOV before editing this article or anywhere in WP.
Now if you are trying to set the scene in the WP:LEAD on the basis of original information in the article, you can't write anything in the lead which doesn't find a description in the following sections. For example, from your proposal -
  1. "It refers to those who converted to Christianity in its earliest days from the Jewish diaspora, and other local communities in Southern India. Their numbers were vastly supplemented bySyriac Christian immigrants who migrated in the later centuries." : would be challenged. The "claim of Jewish lineage" is poorly supported by available sources and adamant attempt to include this point without consensus has already caused the block of an experienced WP user.
  2. "Their historical and liturgical language is Syriac" - It could be confusing as the word "Historical" may be interpreted to say that Syriac was their first language historically and it is not supported in the present version of the article.
  3. "Well known as a prominent business community in Kerala, they were historically associated with spice trade and are now largely plantation and big business owners, with a reputation for public service in the bureaucracy." - Only a minority of the community could be associated with the plantation business, big businesses and upper bureaucracy. So it could attract WP:POV.
I welcome your active participation in the talk page for the improvement of the article, and before really editing the article, please try to reach a consensus to avoid an edit-war or conflict. Cheers. -AshLey Msg 13:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


In the ref you have cited above, there is nothing really to support the Jewish ancestry or any other changes that you have suggested above. If I'm wrong please quote the exact sentence. TIA - AshLey Msg 13:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Nasrani.net is not a great source anyway. We really should be keeping our use of it to an absolute minimum. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. Sitush is quite right about nasrani.net; we should not be using a website when we have access to various university-published academic texts. Additionally, Spiritofyuva's other changes introduced some red flags and material that is not found in the cited sources. For instance, I specifically removed the term "ethnoreligious group" because the sources don't use it. Of course, the St. Thomas Christians could be called an ethnoreligious group, but since the sources don't, neither should we. The sources I have access to also do not include the claim that the early STCs were "those who converted to Christianity in its earliest days from the Jewish diaspora" nor do they make any claims about a "Hebrew-Syriac Christian tradition and culture" (in fact some of them specifically do not say that). The edit also greatly overemphasizes the tradition of Thomas in India, including introducing specific dates that simply can't be verified. At the same time, it inexplicably removed mentions of the archdeacon and the Malankara Church despite these being discussed fairly heavily in the article.
Similary, this edit to the Terminology section alters what the sources say about the names "Saint Thomas Christians"/"Christians of Saint Thomas" and the honorific "Mappila".
On the whole, there is much work to be done, but we need to sort out the remainder of the article before we worry too much about the introduction.--Cúchullain t/c 13:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Jewish connection again

Just like in the Knanya article several suggestions to Jewish origin are fake or manipulated.

  1. The picture of the copper plate contains Arabic and Hebrew signatures because it was signed by witnesses from Jewish and Muslim trading gilds from the Middle East. This is mentioned in The Church of the East: A Concise History pp. 55-56, by Wilhelm Baum and Dietmar Winkler. two very respectable historians of the Church of the East.
  2. The word "Qurbana" is indeed related to the Jewish Korban but the wikilink should go obviously to Holy Qurbana. QRB is a Semitic word meaning "to come closer" and it have been used since early Semitic religions to describe the act of drawing near to a deity by offering a sacrifice. This word is found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
  3. Madbaha is Syriac for altar, the red curtain symbolises the blood of Jesus and is used in Syriac Orthodox churches. It can be compared with the Eastern Orthodox Iconostasis. It is not any more related to the Jewish Holy of the Holies than any other Christian church.

I suggest either placing maintenance tags or correcting those parts.--Rafy talk 16:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be corrected. Let's fix it.Cúchullain t/c 00:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Move article name from Saint Thomas Christians to Saint Thomas Christian

I suggest we rename the article to Saint Thomas Christian (singular). The page was originally titled 'Syrian Malabar Nasrani' which is a singular term. Also several other articles like Christian, Malayali etc are all titled with their singular terms. I guess it would be apt to delete the 's' at the end. I believe the article considers STC (Nasrani) as a caste or ethnic group. What say you? -PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A move isn't necessary. Both plural and singular forms are acceptable and well established. Plurals are much more common, in particular for ethnic groups (see WP:ETHNICGROUP). Many other significant articles on ethnoreligious groups use plurals: Jews, Goan Catholics, Amish, Copts, and Samaritans. I don't see any reason for the change, or any benefit to it.Cúchullain t/c 03:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing unimportant sources to southists/Knanaya-

I suggest removing allegations such as some christians seek lineage to the second wife of thomas of Kana. It is truely a matter of debate. Southists are considered as sons/daughters of a concubine where as some southist editors inserted the above said words to insult the whole syrian christians and there by promoting racism.

117.204.113.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Help sourcing up Kerala muslim articles

Okay guys, I know this is where lots of Malayalam speakers hang out. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kerala, where is "Adrishery"? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What happened to all the Malayalam speakers? Another one, Thangal Uppapa, anyone know how to spell this in Malayalam? Then we might have a chance of pinning down some sources. But "Adrishery" is that a place? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why these St. Thomas Christian portal is hijacked by Syro Malabalar Catholics? They think they are are the only christians , the Pork eaters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.62.199 (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Demographics of different Syrian christian sects

What is the credibility of this false statistics? ''''Bold text' The site says 39.4 lacs of Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara together. Total statistics says around 68 lakhs of Syrian Christians altoghether!!

Let us analyse it.

Kerala portal says Christians constitute 19% of the state population.Kerala population altogether is 333 lacs. So 19% means 63 lakhs. If 63 lacs is the total population of christians in Kerala, How many are Syrian Christians? Latin Christians in Kerala numbers around 15 lacs. So 63-15=48 lacs. Yes 48 lacs of Syrian Christians.

What I suppose is 22 lacs of Syro Malabar church 

                 15 lacs   Malankara Syrian Church
                 5 lacs    Marthoma Church
                 3 lacs    Malankara Catholic church
                 1 lacs    CSI syrian, 
                 2 lacs    Malabar Independent, Nestorian Pentecostal churches

I request to remove the false demographic representations in this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.101.26 (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


Your reasoning seems fine, but the stat presented in the article is based on the global population of STCs, not just local residents. That means, we can't relate it with the 19% of Kerala population. AshLey Msg 06:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Many of these articles are mere stories. This site seemed to be hijacked by the Roman Catholics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.144.243 (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Thomas_Christians/Archive_5&oldid=1136378538"