Talk:Saint Thomas Christians

Moving forward with the merger

Okay, the merge discussion has closed as consensus to merge, and it's time to get started. I think everyone involved understands that this is going to require a lot of work, as this is a big subject and these two articles have been separate for years. The first step will be merging the page histories of the two pages. I'll do this today. All previous versions will be found in the history, so we can bring in any necessary material as we work.
Once the actual merger is done we can start combining the material from both previous articles (and obviously any new material that would improve it as well). This is what's going to take the most time and energy. I will try to work on this through the week as time permits.
Some users have discussed having a separate article on the religion of the St. Thomas Christians, to be called "Saint Thomas Christian Churches" or something similar. If Robin klein or any other editor wants to get started on that, the material from both existing articles will be available in the article history, and can be forked over at any time.
This will be a big project, but it's a necessary one, and a long time coming. Hopefully it will go a long way to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Saint Thomas Christians.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the page histories are extremely complex and overlapping, so I'm not going to perform a history merge, at least not quite yet. We can get started on merging content from the Nasrani page over here and attribute it properly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Got a start on it today. I removed some duplicate information and plugged the gaps with information from Malankara Church, including the academic sources used there.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Persian connection

Paragraph 2 begins by saying that, Historically the Saint Thomas Christian community was part of the Church of the East, centred in Persia.

I am interested to find historical evidences to prove this claim.

Reading about recent excavations at Muziris and Berenice Troglodytica, I know that there was close contact between Muziris in Kerala and Alexandria in Egypt during the first century BCE to third century CE.

Reading the Church History by Eusebius, Book V, Chapter 10, I find that Pantaenus the Philosopher from Alexandria came to Muziris in 2nd century. (The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea in Palastine. Translated from the originals by The Rev. Christian Frederick Cruse. George Bell & Sons, London. 1874.)

Now, is it possible to show some such evidences that the Saint Thomas Christians (Marthoma Nazranis) had some such relation with Iran (Persia) in the first and second century. Also names of the Bishops/priests and what they were doing in Kerala. If you have only evidences written by historians in the last few centuries, or only in an internet article, please explain how they came to this conclusion. If you have no substancial, evidences please consider this as inaccurate and delete this sentence.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the Saint Thomas Christians were connected with the Church of the East is very well known, and the material is now correctly cited in the article. The sources we're citing that indicate this are G. Menachery, Erik Frykenberg, and Wilhelm Baum & Dietmar W. Winkler. The Frykenberg book in particular has a lengthy section on it that can be previewed through Google Books. Not that it matters for our purposes, but there are indeed plenty of primary sources on this as well, for instance the work of Cosmas Indicopleustes and writings of Patriarch Mar Timothy, who established India as a separate province.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Chuchulian. I have been reading the note above and see that the earliest note that you have is the Christian Topography by Cosmas Indicopleustes, a rich Christian merchant (who later became a monk) from Alexandria in Egypt. (Please note that he was from Alexandria and not from Persia) He visited India in 522 CE and there he saw a Persian bishop. I hope you are not saying that seeing a Persian bishop in India means that he was ruling over the Indian Christians.

Around 120 years before the visit of Cosmas, during the time of Safur II, 72 families escaped from Persia arrived in 345 CE, and settled in Kerala under the leadership of Knai Thomma. They were also Nazranis but not necessarily Marthoma Nazranis (Saint Thomas Christians). Probably it was during their time Persian bishops or priests began arriving. Nazranis were there in Malabar (Kerala) before 345 CE. Also very well known facts need not be always true. Once the fact that the earth was flat was very well known.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You can look into the cited sources for further information. As I've explained to you elsewhere, Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources by the experts in the field, rather than primary sources, which can be interpreted differently by different people. Also keep in mind that the article only says that an organized Christian presence can be traced to around the 3rd century, when East Syrian Christians from Persia settled in India. Over time, stronger and stronger links with the Persian Church (the Church of the East) were established, and eventually India was separated into an Ecclesiastical Province with its own metropolitan bishop. There may indeed have been Christians in India long before that, and I think the article makes that clear.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The term "Nasrani"

Robin klein asked me to look into the removal of some instances of the term "Nasrani". It looks like that may not have been the specific intention of the editor, who made other style improvements and additions. On the term, I'll reiterate what I've said before - there's nothing wrong with using the term "Nasrani". In an Indian context it means the same thing as "Saint Thomas Christian". The Wikipedia-originated construction "Syrian Malabar Nasrani", however, needs to be removed, as really no sources uses it, as does anything not supported by the sources, bad grammar and capitalization, etc.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit warring is clearly revealing an agenda edit going on against Syriac traditions of the Nasranis. Saint Thomas Christians is clearly a modern english translation of the syriac term Mar Thoma (Saint Thomas) Nasrani. This is a case of editors coming together and hounding others. Besides stating a 19th century comment of 'Hindu Christian' as indicating hindu connotation is farcical. The term Hindu was largely used instead of the term 'India'. Anthropologically what Buchannan meant was 'Indian Christian'. But then long before the independence of India all people were referred to as Hindu regardless of their religious or socio-ethnic cultural origins and affiliations. As for the English translation, yes the reference used by the editor might have been questionable but most sources referenced in the article clearly states Mar Thoma Nasrani as the original appellation for the Syriac community of Malabar and Saint Thomas Christian is clearly a derivative. Please stop bullying other editors by using administrator status. Robin klein (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty tired of your unproductive utterly baseless accusations and personal comments, Robin. I have been polite with you so far and endeavored to work with you to take care of your concerns, but comments like the above make that very difficult. Please comment on the content, not the contributors.

On the issue of the term "Mar Thoma Nasranis", that's simply not at all what those sources say. They say, quite specifically, that the local name at the time of European contact was Nasrani or Nasrani Mappila, NOT "Mar Thoma Nasranis". "Saint Thomas Christians" is not an English translation of an Indian term (if that term was even used at the time); if anything it's a cognate of the Portuguese term for the Nasrani (Cristãos de São Tomé). In fact, despite your claim, not a single one of the sources even mentions the term "Mar Thoma Nasranis"; I have no clue where you get the idea that they do. Further, the source does not say the group was known as "Syrian Christians", it says "Syrians", and makes no mention of the liturgy. Sorry, but we go with what the sources say, with better sources taking precedence.

On the "Hindu Christian" stuff, I agree with you. That whole segment sourced to the 1811 book is suspect. I'll remove it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain,

I agree with you that accusing you is not a nice thing and no way to deal with an issue. I agree with what you have stated about the term 'Mar Thoma Nasrani'. But I am afraid your delay in acknowledging that the whole segment of misleading usage of 'Hindu Christian' etc.. being suspect and need to be removed came only after I made a 'noise' about it even though the other editor kept on deleting it but only in vain. I may have been wrong in my accusation and wish that I am wrong in this case. But the edit warring seemed otherwise. Hope we could avoid this in future by being truly fair in our edit and deletions and reverts. thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to tell you to assume good faith about other contributors. I didn't notice that the "Hindu Christian" stuff had been added, and even today didn't immediately recognize it as problematic until you pointed it out. You certainly didn't deal with it yourself or even bring it up on the talk page, which should be expected if you took issue with it. At any rate, I'm working on that section now, using academic sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I have removed the problematic material (and a lot more of unsourced or poorly sourced material in that section). I replaced it academic sources and material adapted from Malankara Church. I will continue to work on the article as time permits. In the future, if you see anything that needs changing, please at least bring it up on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain,

Thanks for your work. You are right I should have taken up the work myself. But I should say that I feel threatened by the bullying behavior of certain editors with fierce nationalistic casteist agenda. I feel intimidated to make changes or add material by intimidating behavior of individuals with casteist ideology in the form of relentless edit war without discussion that I experienced over the past couple of months. Such things should have been avoided in order to not scare away editors. I hope editors watching this page may not allow bullying and do not support it through silence for the purpose of nationalistic and casteist ideology. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very sorry if you are feeling put upon by others, and would be happy to help you deal with such things if you hit me up on my talk page. But I can tell you that you're making some pretty serious accusations, and making such comments without anything to back them up will get us precisely nowhere.

As to the article, again, if you see anything that needs to be dealt with (there's a ton of that here) at least bring it up on the talk page. I've done a lot of work here and will continue to do more as time and resources permit.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Robin Klein - thanks for contacting me on my Talk page re the edits here, however, I have to say that on the contrary it appears to be Cúchullain and the other editors who are simply editing straight and following WP guidelines in basing WP:Title, etc, on WP:RS. And I should also say that with "fierce nationalistic casteist agenda" you are violating WP:NPA and need to avoid that in future. All that is happening is that a badly written article is being improved and conformed to reliable WP:V. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear In ictu oculi and Cuchullain,

Thanks for your response. I shall bring up on the talk page any further issues. thanks Robin klein (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why the Sources: C Buchanan and Michael Geddes are unreliable for you? Both are treasures of invaluable information about Syrian Christians. Social stratification on the basis of caste is a ground reality in India. Now Indian Govt has ordered a caste bases census and it has already launched in many cities. Why does Mr. Robin find it reasonable to mention the Jewish account of Syrian Christians while he considers the terms Hindu, Brahmin etc as casteist? --AshLey ^Msg 16:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ashley, the Buchanan and Geddes sources are problematic because they are so old. The Geddes work is essentially a primary source, which we can't use for any kind of interpretation. It is fine for things like direct quotes of the wording, but any interpretation needs to come from up-to-date modern sources. Similarly, sourcing entire paragraphs only to Buchanan's work, which is over 200 years old, is a bit of an issue. Fortunately we have many modern works on the Saint Thomas Christians we can use to cover the same things, and which will have access all the research that has occurred since 1806.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple of holes that might be filled

I don't know if these details strike anyone else as interesting/relevant but think it might help the article if anyone can provide sourced edits adding:

• What is the word "Nasrani" in Malayalam? - evidently it's from Syriac "Nazarene" meaning "Christian" is it actually a loan-word into Malayalam for Christian or just some Christians?
• the official name(s) of the Mar Thoma church(es) followed by the format "(Malayalam script, romanization, "literal translation")
• the official name of the ethnic group in GOI census materials.
• The official Bible of the Mar Thoma church(es) per Bible translations into Malayalam. Does the canon include the Deutero-canonicals?
• Other? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I can answer a few of these questions.

• "Nasrani" is a term used in various languages, including Malayam, for "Christian". In the Indian context, the term refers only to the Saint Thomas Christians - it's not used for Latin Catholics, Protestants, etc. The term is of Arabic origin, and appears to be derived from "Nasareth".
• The different Saint Thomas Christian churches use different Bibles depending on their affiliation. Except for Protestants, all Christians use the "deuterocanonicals", though they vary on which ones they include. Among the Saint Thomas Christians, the Catholic churches (Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and Syro-Malankara Catholic Church) use local versions derived from the standard Catholic Bible. The Syrian Orthodox-affiliated/influenced churches use versions derived from the Syriac Bible (the Peshitta). I believe that all (or nearly all) the churches currently use Bibles in Malayam; the difference is which version they were translated from (and therefore which books they include). Prior to the 16th century, the Saint Thomas Christians would have used the Church of the East's version of the Peshitta, which is slightly different from the modern Syriac Orthodox Bible.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting to know that a non-Saint Thomas Christian would not be called "Nazarene" in Malayalam, this probably should be in this article. The information on versions I have copied verbatim in the translations article, since although anecdotal it agrees in much more detail with what other sources have said. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to find track down a more direct source for this. The gist of it is that in the original sense, "Nasrani" (or its cognates) just refers to Christians in general. For centuries the only Christians in southern India were the Thomas Christians (and Syrian natives associated with them). Later on when European Christians and Indian converts came onto the scene, "Nasrani" served to distinguish them from not only Hindus and Muslims, but other Christians as well. Another interesting term used at the time of European contact was "Nasrani Mappila", which means something along the lines of "Christian Brother-In-Law", i.e., Christians native to Malabar.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

The section on Portuguese contact was re-written with superior sources per the discussion above. Editors had some problems with the wording and the sources, so I rewrote them more neutrally using academic sources. The material is well sourced, directly relevant, and removed unsourced and poorly sourced passages. Please stop removing them.
Additionally, the issues with the term "Mar Thoma Nasranis" are also explained above. Specifically, that term is not common and does not appear in any of the sources. The source specifically says that the local name was "Nasrani" or "Nasrani Mappila", NOT "Mar Thoma Nasrani". "Mar Thoma Nasrani" appears to be a very uncommon term, and it is not the source for the English term "Saint Thomas Christian" (that's a cognate of the Portuguese term for them, Cristãos de São Tomé. The website added does not appear to be a reliable source. Thank you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As the edit warring has continued without discussion, it leaves no choice but to seek administrator intervention.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that one edit warrior has caused an article that is actively being worked on to be protected, but action was clearly necessary. Let's move forward with the discussion. For the reasons just explained, this version is much better sourced and neutral than what currently appears. All the material is attributed to high-quality, recent academic sources, compared to this, which is replete with material attributed to out-of-date or inferior sources, material that doesn't appear in the cited sources, incomplete citations, poor writing, and lengthy passages with no sources whatsoever. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others. Once we sort this out I will continue updating the article with new sources.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain,

It is indeed unfortunate that the page had to be protected but then it was needed. I thank you for painstakingly rewriting the section on Portuguese Persecution. I agree with your write up for the section. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Presumably that closes the page to IP edits for a period? Thanks to the admin. Now Cuchallain's last edit needs to be restored - but carefully copying in the page protection template left by the Admin. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you In ictu. The page is actually full-protected; no one can edit it. It's frustrating since we're activelly working on improving it, but sometimes that's what needs to be done to stop the disruption. In the meantime we can pursue consensus on the talk page.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh well never mind. I think the admin is probably right to go with a full PP, it's just unfortunate that the IP's edit which both you and Robin had agreed on was on top. In the meantime (a) any tendentious issues can still be discussed here, and (b) other Christianity in Kerala pages such as the Bible translations into Malayalam and several others can be improved. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't spread misinformation. Saint Thomas Christians never formed an alliance with the Portuguese, it was "forced upon" them by the Portuguese. So please be careful while editing.117.202.114.165 (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

117.216.74.69, not a promising start. Your edits are the main recent factor that has got the page frozen. I barely know anything about this subject, but even a cursory look shows that the academic sources you are objecting to (and have deleted) are not the only ones but representative of all texts:

• Edward René Hambye, George Menachery -The St. Thomas Christian encyclopaedia of India 1982 "Even the waning Portuguese power could still muster enough authority to help out Christian communities belonging to the Padroado, which had never lived in any territory controlled by the Portuguese crown"
• A. Mathias Mundadan - The arrival of the Portuguese in India and the Thomas Christians 1967 "OTHER RELATIONS OF THE ST. THOMAS CHRISTIANS WITH THE PORTUGUESE TILL ABOUT 1520 Here we pass on to examine the first fruits of the new alliance the community of St. Thomas Christians has just entered into with the Portuguese."
• Leslie Brown The Indian Christians of St Thomas 1956 "So when the Portuguese came, the St Thomas Christians were delighted at the prospect of getting a new protector who was also a Christian like themselves"

It took literally 3 minutes to find those. Do you have any WP:RS to support your edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The material is well sourced and ought to stay. Robert Frykenburg is a well respected scholar in the field of South Asian studies and the book was published by Oxford. In contrast, Buchanan, though invaluable for his time period, was a minister and missionary, and his book is over 200 years old. It can't be used to contradict the current scholarship.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that the standard of the current presentation is to be improved. But the situation which led to the conflict between Syrians and Portuguese is more complex in nature. The cultural and liturgical identity of Syrians were totally unacceptable for the Europeans and finally it led to the crack. This point should be indented in Cochullains edits. Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper throws light on this aspect. Social implications of the Synod also need an attention since we are dealing with an ethnic group. Syrian Christians were living as a Hindu Upper Caste before the arrival of Portuguese and there were systemic disturbances and resettlement after the latinization of this community. Their upper caste status was derived from the deep rooted belief that a good portion of the early Christians in Malabar were brahmins and the community still keeps pride in the traditional beliefs.

• A Historical-developmental study of classical Indian philosophy of morals - Rajendra Prasad, Centre for Studies in Civilizations (Delhi, India) - ISBN 8180695956 - - Page 484 ".......the sudden removal of these caste rules lowered the status of Syrian Christians.............." "While they remained Christian in faith, they retained typical Hindu social customs"
• Origin of Christianity in India: a historiographical critique By Benedict Vadakkekara Page 32 - "the claim to a brahmanic origin made their position all the more secure" ....- Page 78 - " The Synod of Diamper imperiled the communities high-caste status....." and "Malabr Christians had strong objections to pollute themselves even by kissing the ring of Portuguese Archbishop..."

These points are to be mentioned to render a ralistic picture of the Christians of St Thomas as an Indian ethnic group in the original context. If these are exculded considering casteist, we would miss some factual information in this article which is essential in the Indian context.

One more, Mar Thomma Christians is the Malayalam usage of the original Portuguese term for Malabar Christians, "Cristãos de São Tomé". (Ref: Origin of Christianity in India: a historiographical critique By Benedict Vadakkekara - Page 46) Also I believe, before the arrival of Portuguese, they were just "Christians" (Mal: ക്രിസ്ത്യാനികള്‍ - pron: kristianikal) for the Malabar society.AshLey --^Msg 14:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this material could be included in that section. Much of that was already touched on in my edit - specifically, it mentions that the Synod officially anathemized certain customs (especially local customs also associated with Hindus) that the Portuguese considered "superstitious" or just plain didn't like, and it reformed the liturgy to purge it of elements the Portuguese didn't approve of. The sources you mention We do need to be careful not to go off on tangents - we have a great deal to cover in this article, so what we do include needs to be given proper weight. But of course any (well-sourced and neutral) material we can't get into here would certainly be appropriate for include in other articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank u. Kudos to your efforts for improving the article. Since Indians value their culture and heritage more than anything, I recommend such contents to be included, but surely you could purge any tangential and unrealistic stuff. --AshLey ^Msg 15:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's certainly worth working in in more detail. The Synod of Diamper was a major event in the history of the community. I'm also working on a few paragraphs for the period between between the earliest days and Portuguese contact, which hopefully will be a good bridge between those two sections.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I look forward eagerly to see the improvements as you mentioned above, but when this Full Protection will be removed? --218.248.72.195 (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It will expire later today, but obviously it will be restored if there's any further edit warring.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Okay, as consensus appeared to be quite clear I went ahead and made the discussed changes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

" Despite the reform, groups such as the Knanaya people preserved some elements of their culture due to their tradition of endogamy." This sentence is misleading in the present context. There is no relation between Portuguese reforms and Knanaya endogamy. In the Portuese period both the Northists and Southists were endogomous.(The St. Thomas Christian encyclopaedia of India: Volume 1 -"The Nothist-Southist endogamous division among the Christians of St. Thomas is attributed to the arrival of Thomas of Cana and his men. The Portuguese, who witnessed many quarrels between these two rival groups during the 16th century".....Page 3) No academic sources are there to support the challenged point as it is. The given sources have some content on the preservation of Knanaya traditions by the Southists, aided by their endogamous nature and that has been quoted here out of context. --AshLey ^Msg 14:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I don't have access to all those sources, but it does strike me as a logical error and therefore a reason to doubt that the sources really connect Knanaya endogamy to the particular reforms of the Synod of Diamper. We may be able to work the material in elsewhere, but we need to be sure we're following what the sources actually say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank u. Many of those sources are inaccessible. I'll try to get some hard copy. --AshLey ^Msg 16:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is true that the passage dealing with knanaya traditions need not be there in the section on portuguese persecution. However the sources are legitimate especially the one by Shalva Weil from Hebrew University Jerusalem published in an academic Journal of Sociology. The text has to be added in the appropriate section. Robin klein (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the sources themselves look legit. I personally don't have a way of checking into them, so I can't verify the material to make sure it's not taken out of context. Do you have access to them?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read the paper by Shalva Weil from Hebrew University Jerusalem. She states that the traditions of Knanaya Nasranis and Cochin Jews are very similar. She also mentions in the very same paper that until recent times the so called Syrian Christians of Kerala were mostly referred to as "Nasrani" including in governmental documents. She also mentions in the same paper that there are traditions that state that even the so called Northists claim to be descendants of Jewish settlers in the Malabar. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Some traditions of Knanaya Nasranis(Southists) and Cochin Jews are very similar." - This point could be included in the portion dealing with cultural identity. But the statement- "There are traditions that state that even the so called Northists claim to be descendants of Jewish settlers in the Malabar." - is purely arbitrary and there are more reliable sources to confirm the indigenous origin of Northists. --AshLey ^Msg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.72.195 (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Weil source is certainly reliable, though we do need to be absolutely certain that we're really indicating what that and the other cited sources say. Robin, could you give us the exact quote from p. 16 of the article relating to the Knanaya and their endogamy?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain, Right now I have no access to that paper by Prof S. Weil. But the paper discusses at length the similarities between the Knanaya community and the Cochin Jews. It also tries to give a common cultural background of the syrian christian nasrani community and shows the similarities among the said communities. thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

Thank you for your work, Ashley, but I'm afraid there are some problems with these additions. Some of the citations are inadequate or to very old sources. The Ananthakrishna Iyer book is from 1926 ([12]), while the Hough book is from 1839. These sources are too out of date to be used considering we have access to multiple more recent sources. Additionally, the Ponnumuthan book appears to be a book on spirituality and philosophy, not history, anthropology, etc., and so it probably should be avoided. The Pothan and Bayley books look good, but the cite for the former has no page number, while the latter has no publication information. That needs to be fixed. All in all we're going to have to take another stab at these additions with the more up-to-date sources and full citations.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Deletion

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need some description on the inscriptions (Stone and Copper) granting privileges to Saint Thomas Christians. Those are considered of immense importance in the history of Syrian Christians, Jews and even Nairs. Additionally, shall we include a table on the haplogroups of Syrian Christians from this page[13] --AshLey ^Msg 09:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Dear Cuchullain, since you expressed interest in what could be stated in the article from the genealogy webpage from Family Tree DNA project - Syrian Christians of Kerala, India. The key findings so far as summarized by the Family Tree DNA project could be stated. Here you may find a brief summary of the key findings so far. [14]. It states that there is plenty of surprise with the genetic results showing middle eastern and Jewish lineage. Would you still be interested in stating this in the wikipedia article?? thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Dear Ashley,

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

Dear Ashley,

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

I tried to remove the imbalanced views and undue stress given to Jewish part of the story ignoring the indigenous traditions and lineage. If you recollect the early version of this article(on which we argued in Dispute Resolution Board),it misleadingly mentioned only the Jewish lineage, totally hiding the indigenous side. It's true that I appealed and attempted to restore the neutrality by removing unnecessary insertion of Jew/Jewish term which in turn had deteriorated the quality of this document. Regarding my claims and action- "Over here he(St.Thomas) spent the initial days with the Jewish community, preached the Gospel and evangelized them." && " The term "Mappila" represents miscegenation or Racial Admixture among Semitic people and indigenous people in the ancient coastal cities of Malabar.[42] ....... since racial admixture of the native people took place among Muslims with Arabs and Syrian Christian with Jews.[43]"[15] - these points were introduced by me, but I was helpless to find any reliable sources for proper citation. Let's have good faith on each other for the improvement this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture Gallery

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

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

Demography population statistics

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

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

12% is more reliable. 6.05 M/31.8 M = 19% is the % of total Christian population including the people of Latin Rite and others(See 2001 Census data here [16]). According to 2011 Census (provisional), total population of Kerala has grown to 33.38 million. Assuming the Syrian Christian percentage at 12.25%[17] as given in Demographics of Kerala, the 2011 population of Nasranis in Kerala could be estimated as 33.38x0.1225=4.089 million. But the migration statistics are not available in Census data.--AshLey ^Msg 17:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

IP deletion

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