Talk:Catholicos of the East

Moving article

Please stop moving article without discussion. Student7 (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to tell that to Arun. Lijujacobk (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Names of the churches

May I suggest listing all the names of each church only once. Then using the preferred name by each throughout the rest of the article.Student7 (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is impossible to follow. You will have to get shorter names for each church so that an unknowledgeable reader can follow the arguments. Going on and on about a church with six names, which sometimes changes, is just not reasonable. I thought I had read somewhere that each faction has a short name consisting of one word each. That is what we need here. Or we need to abbreviate or something. Student7 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "Jacobites" and "Syrians?" It means sticking to these names for most of the article! Student7 (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

This is a proper name, like Archbishop of Canterbury. English idiom requires that it be capitalized Catholicos of the East, as the article text has it; if this is uncontroversial, WP:RM will do it quickly. If not, please come tell them, and we can discuss at length. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

Hard for me to pick/understand sides since I don't. But last part of pov labeled section is aimed at one faction who "claims" or "believes" something that contradicts another. All that can be asserted is what a faction believes about itself. This needs to be sorted into "beliefs about each faction" clearly and what that faction believes about the other (I suppose) if not too WP:POV. Both need to be stated as "beliefs" not fact. "Claims." A bit hard to do when it is your side, but there you have it.

In other words, I can assert that "I believe that I am smart. I believe that you are stupid." Unfortunately I must now follow this with a balanced remark. "You think you are smart. You think I am stupid." I may not like nor agree with the last two sentences, but it represents a balanced article on the topic of our IQ! Student7 (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseless article

This article needs a clean up. Indian church is an autonomous body within the Syriac Orthodox Church. The two parallel fractions exists in the same church for authority and power. All other materials are useless and unnecessary. Refer to AIR 1995 SC 2001, the Supreme Court Judgement on this fraction fight in Orthodox Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexyalex (talk • contribs) 13:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to request a merger of two articles, or a deletion of this one. Can you give us a pointer to the "other article?" is it Syriac Orthodox Church? Student7 (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand what you are saying. They are 2 different churches since 1975 both with their own hierarchy and Catholicoses. Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is a autocephalous church under the catholicos of the east and Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church is an autonomous church under Patriarch of Antioch. Please read the wiki article on both the churches.

ܠܝܓܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexyalex is claiming that this church is one and the same with some other church/article. He claims (with no reference nor any article) that a court has decided they are one church for purposes of ownership. Is this true?

Several questions: why does Alexyalex not have the name of the article of the church this one is supposed to be a part of? Why does he not supply a pointer to the court decision about the two churches being the same?

Having said that, this article has long been poorly footnoted. Why has it been allowed to continue in such sad shape for so long? Are there no supporting footnotes from WP:RELY sources? Student7 (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is only one church - The Orthodox Church of India (Malankara). AIR 1995 SC 2001 (if someone has doubt refer it!!!, its a public document), clearly states there is only one Orthodox church in India and the Hon'ble court ordered to conduct a common meeting to select the Catholicos and Malankara Metroplotan for the church. Note that, both the parallel fractions paid the expenses to the court for conducting that election in 2002. These parallel fractions call themselves by name - "Malankara Orthodox Syrian church" and "Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church". In actual they are only parallel groups and not churches. And moreover, there is dispute in all churches built before 2002. I comes to around 1036 churches in 1995. The claim of autocephaly is also wrong. The 1st article of the constitution of Malankara fraction says "its autonomous part of the Syrian Orthodox Church, having the hierarchial head the Patriarch of Antioch and the autonomous leader the Catholicos of East" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexyalex (talk • contribs) 09:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You are saying "look it up." Instead, I would like you to furnish an online footnote [ http:....] type pointer. Having a court say so is obviously not enough. I can get a court (somewhere) to say that you are now a part of my church. That doesn't mean that you will attend my church on the next holy day! Are you saying that this other group now considers themselves part of your group? Doesn't seem likely. You need to convince the editor(s) of this article of what you are saying. Student7 (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

exacty. Say I start a new church today and say that the Eastern orthodox churches and Roman Catholic Church are part of it and that my church is the largest church in the world, will that be a valid claim. Say that I have a court order from some court. ܠܝܓܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

SInce u asked, am referring to a recent 2007 case on this fraction fight in the Orthodox Church in india. http://www.malankaraorthodoxalmayavedhi.org/Judgement/kathipparathadom.htm When u read this, u can get a clear view, of the claims of both fractions and the popular JUDGEMENT of the Hon'ble Supreme court of India. And dont neglect the Supreme court, since it interprets and even makes laws in India. No courts in India can take a decision against the Supreme Court Verdict as per Indian Constitution . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexyalex (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)