Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:33, 15 June 2012

Template:Castewarningtalk

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saint Thomas Christians article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saint Thomas Christians article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ], ], ], ], (2x) ] For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Kerala High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kerala (assessed as High-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2012. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: India / Syriac Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India (assessed as Top-importance). This article is within the scope of the Syriac Christianity work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Oriental Orthodoxy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on the Oriental Orthodox Church on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Oriental OrthodoxyWikipedia:WikiProject Oriental OrthodoxyTemplate:WikiProject Oriental OrthodoxyOriental Orthodoxy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 /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 /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." 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 /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. A number of texts were condemned and ordered burnt, including the Peshitta, the Syriac version of the Bible.

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 /c 15:01, 27 April 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 /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 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 ], 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 /c 18:39, 14 May 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 /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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 /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 /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 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 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 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 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)

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 /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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages's policies. The Misplaced Pages "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 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. Misplaced Pages 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. 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. ) 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: Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 ]) 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 /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 /c 13:28, 1 May 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 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 /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 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 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 /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 /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 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 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 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 /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 10:55, 17 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 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 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 14:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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 /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 Misplaced Pages 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 /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 /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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages tells us to be Bold. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages 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 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 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

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 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 /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 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 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 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 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 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 12:33, 15 June 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)

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 11:37, 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 and tampered on 14 dec 2011 by User:Ashley thomas80 was restored on 31 May 2012. This has again been tampered and deleted by User:Ashley thomas80 . 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 /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 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. 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) and other sources such as I don't see any reason to exclude this information.--Cúchullain /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 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 /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 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 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 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 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 /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 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 /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 /c 16:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Then how could I get the opinion of one more expert in the subject? --AshLey 16:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the beauties of Misplaced Pages 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 /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 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 /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 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 /c 14:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Baum & Winkler say, after discussing the Syrian migration and Southist claims of descent from it: "Each group 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 /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 /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 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 /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 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 /c 16:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• B-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of High-importance
• B-Class Kerala articles
• High-importance Kerala articles
• B-Class Kerala articles of High-importance
• WikiProject Kerala articles
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Indian Christianity work group articles
• Top-importance Indian Christianity work group articles
• Indian Christianity work group articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• Unknown-importance Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy articles