Talk:Knanaya

December 2015

I've reverted this series of changes. In addition to adding numerous style and factual errors (lines like "The Knanaya, are christian community...", "In the modern ecumenical era earlier discrimination terms that were used is shunned", "Historical evidences", etc.), the changes also contradict the sourced material. Material attributed to Swiderski was excised or altered to make claims not found in the source, and new material lacking any sourcing was added. In general, the edits were detrimental to the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

From previous edit histories the problem is very clear that it has less weight on the "issue at hand" and more tendency to get into the same types of disputes again and again. Whether you're right or wrong on the specifics of this dispute, you're claims are detrimental to the article if you let yourself get into another very similar conflict as in the past. At a certain point, you have to ask yourself, "what am I doing that leads me to get into so many disputes with so many different community members using Wikipedia?". But this shouldn't stop you from promoting Northists and Southists Theory of Swiderski and for the creative writing you may start here Northist and Southist divide among Syrian Christians and the same could be linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.236.248 (talk)

As I explained to you before, Swiderski is obviously a reliable source for this topic, and his material is accurately represented here. We don't remove well-sourced material because certain editors disagree with it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, edit warring and excising well-sourced material are not acceptable. Please stop immediately.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

. The article has been protected. I'm going to restore the last good version. If you have other suggestions or corrections, please discuss them here on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, edit warring by Cúchullain, please give a rest to this obsessiveness. I have seen the edit, it was good. Even the excised material based on one source from Swiderski, his theory was given a separate head, not the current manner of poor editing like weeds in a paddy field Swiderski's widely conflicted theory is jammed with Knanaya article, which makes any reader question what this article is really about. If admin's like NeilN could take up this, it would be great. Because you can see what Cúchullain did after your page protection and it seems its not his/hers first attempts on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.210.249 (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I also concur with the weeding principle pointed out by 59.88.210.249. Like in Matthew 13:24-30. But Cúchullain can also see, if s/he has good intentions and require Swiderski's theory be promoted revert to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knanaya&oldid=693628604 since "obviously reliable" source is kept as it is without deletion, but for clarity in a separate head. At-least I hope this time like other Knanaya community members hoped previously let our voice be heard and the least partially justified with Cúchullain Swiderski division theory terms.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.42.219 (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

For other Knanaya community members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_assistance_needed_at_Knanaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.0.76.25 (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone pretending to be unrelated editors. 61.3.42.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited a comment by 59.88.210.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in the same post they claimed to be a different person, for crying out loud.[1] The reason this page was protected is edit warring by these obviously connected sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts. This is simply not how Wikipedia works. If you'd like to suggest a specific, actionable change to the article, I and other editors are happy to work with you. But you'll find you won't get your way by trying to force your preferences through.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll start with some specific criticisms of your edits.

• For one, I don't agree with either censoring Swiderski's findings, or separating them out into a separate article or section. The material are relevant to this article in these sections, and Swiderski is a perfectly reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. In one place, censoring Swiderski had the effect of making the claims of a Jewish origin for the Knanaya seem plausible, which is the exact opposite of what the source says.
  
• Second, you insterted a bunch of material that either had no sources, had unreliable sources, or misrepresented the sources. You misrepresented Swiderski in several different places, but the most problematic area is your "Marriage customs" section. As has been brought to your attention repeatedly in the past, for example here and here, Wikipedia relies on material that is verifiable to independent, reliable sources. The sources you gave simply don't cut it, and they don't verify most of what you added anyway. We can't accept your original research in the article.
  
• Third, you continue to have difficulty in your writing. Your edits were riddled with mispellings, miscapitalizations, style errors, and general bad English. This is correctable, but your edits effectively rewrote the entire article in broken English.

Again, if you have a specific, actionable change to suggest, I'm happy to work with you to implement it. But it will have to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, if the above message is intended to a specific Administrator or an Editor. Don't consider this response. If in general:

Form the wide criticisms, let us move with the established facts that Swiderski's material isn't a good material to prep this article. I am a Syrian Christian, like me many have stated the absurd nature of Southist-Northist Theory. I am a regular church goer and I haven't heard about this or studied in Bible classes or Church history classes. An archdiocese website isn't some buzzer article, the content is scrutinized and is with the consent of the Bishop and Synod. And many of them are PhD holders from various universities across the world. So the standard of the material is of high quality and not biased or opinions- This is a misunderstanding that wasn't corrected earlier, when such claims where brought. I understand why the above editor is opposed to keep Swiderski's excised material as separate. - When all the weeds as someone wittily quoted is separated, the excised material would seem dubious and irrelevant with self-conflicting claims, stories, opinions or silly stories said over a hot cup of tea. In India Knanaya's are always considered as predecessors of Jewish faction in one way or other. Not only Knanayas most of the Syrian Christians consider as such. In many christian organizations, syrian christian's use both the Christian cross and the Star of David as to showcase their heritage. Swiderski's material isn't about Knanaya at all. It mentions them but mainly as the Title of the the source says - "Northists and Southists" theory. If the name of the Article is changed even as "Northists and Southists", there is no need for any excision and everything might(because there is no southist-northist divisions, in present or past-wouldn't find mentioning of this in any other textual and scholarly syrian christian histories) meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otherwise there is a need for "tough-love" on those who slide through Knanaya community members requests and as the above editor mentioned even back from 2012. I would say keep the excised material excised no matter if the discredited material is promoted by a relative of Swiderski or Swiderski himself.

Policy: A policy is a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes.(Wikipedia) Simply, it is solution oriented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.16.226 (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's still not clear exactly what you'd like to change, and you avoided all the points I raised above. There are several other issues with what you're saying.

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, as determined by independent, reliable sources. Regardless of your opinion of him, Swiderski's works cited here are two articles published by peer-reviewed scholarly journals in relevant fields, and a book published by an academic publishing house in India (New Era Publications). All of them easily pass Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, and so far as I can tell they've never been updated or challenged by subsequent scholars. On the other hand, a church's website is obviously not independent and can't be used to counter more reliable sources. It can't be used to challenge well sourced material such as Swiderski's works.

On a related note, Wikipedia is not censored. We don't excise or downplay reliably sourced, neutrally-worded material because some people don't like it. As such, Swiderski can't be removed on the grounds that you or others don't like what he has to say.

Third, despite what you claim, Swiderski (and this article) are clear that the North-South divide construction fell out of favor in the 20th century. That is presumably why you haven't heard of it. However, it's of serious historical importance as it was documented for hundreds of years.

Finally, as before, you're fooling no one and hurting your own case by claiming to be multiple unrelated people. Just drop it. And claiming that the Swiderski material is being "promoted by a relative of Swiderski or Swiderski himself" is laughable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Swiderski (and this article) are clear that the North-South divide construction fell out of favor in the 20th century. You are saying this is a construction. Checking the excised material also, shows no historical credibility and nothing seems documented as you claim - just doubts expressed by the author. I personally don't think Censoring is the issue raised by others, its about neutrality: when the author himself isn't sure about the facts and purports multiple origin stories without any solid evidence seems like fluff material. The material that you have sited is from 1988(http://www.newerapublicationschennai.com/Contents/Contents%20of%20Blood%20Weddings.pdf) Even today nearly anything could be published. So the publishing standards back then are kind of questionable as others have established the facts. Going through the edit history seems, its only you who supports this divisional theory and the way you initiate every talk is its your way or no way. Seeing that even if "promoted by a relative of Swiderski or Swiderski himself" is laughable, but the subtext is really funny-you have to accept that. Swiderski's material seems receiving high flak. I guess if you can find other verifiable sources on the matter, it would help a lot with the Northist-Southist divisional construct. Otherwise go with the history church gives. They simply cant pull a number over these many Knanites with a false history. If you are assuming they can be easily fooled and fighting hence. Then you are stating members of Syrian Christian community as unresponsive, non-critical, easily manipulated, non-educated...etc. This seems harmful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.254.145 (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, stop pretending to be multiple unrelated people. It's not furthering your position, it's just silly. I've already explained why Swiderski's works are reliable and usable by Wikipedia's standards. The article represents what he says accurately and neutrally. You are the only one advocating removing the material, and as it would be counter to Wikipedia's policies and mission, it's unpersuasive.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Southist -Northist- What is it? There was nothing like that, and why does this Cuchullain person is having all the free passes to steer history with falsified material. The article isn't about Southist-Northist division, is it to represent it in Knanaya Article. Cúchullain seems to counter his own convictions. Start a new page on this theory, leave the jawns from this space. It seems someone even precisely cut-out and put it under a heading. Cúchullain as a registered member can cut it and paste it as an other article, even if the article seems to be fabrication entwined with some truth. Move it, at-least in 2016. This is shameful even for other admin's who watch this and do nothing about it since 2012. Its a fair dispute resolution to move the Southist-Northist division theory entirely to a different page. Wow, for almost 5 years Cúchullain seems to have bullied his way through. Its just amazing.Happy new year to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.248.60.238 (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

Dear, Cúchullain

I also support what other community editors have pointed out. The Northist-Southist theory is a Fringe theory, that is only accepted within a minority who have read or supported richard m swiderski. Since nature of it is so widely disputed over the years and accused of misleading readers, I suggest you remove it or revert it to an edit where an editor collected all the juxtaposed content and kept it in separate heading. Otherwise this article is giving an undue weight. Reluctance to add other majority, solid traditional customs supported from the respected church website and from presentation of a digitized decades old video is also counterproductive. I hope you or other surveying editors will take appropriate measures towards this. 117.215.196.92 (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You've already said your piece (repeatedly), and I've already explained why your suggested changes are inappropriate. I've also explained that, you're not going to make any headway until you drop the charade that all your various IP accounts are multiple unrelated people. If you want to continue this discussion, register ONE account and respond to the various points I've already made. Until then, I'm done responding to you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

"Various traditions trace it back to the arrival of the Syrian merchant Thomas of Cana in the 4th or 8th century. Another legend traces their origin to Jews in the Middle East."

Shouldn't it he be Assyrian not Syrian? But then why would he be from Cana? There was no major Assyrian settlement that far west. How can they be both Assyrians and Jews? They are both two different distinct ethnic groups. Why would an Assyrian merchant lead a group of Jews to India? Furthermore, what port could they have sailed out of? The nearest ports would be on the Mediterranean and there would be no access to the Arabian Sea. AbdulAzizBadawi (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

AbdulAzizBadawi: The sources call him "Syrian". The article Thomas of Cana explains the background with him. It's possible he's mythical, or that the stories about him have changed considerably over time. It's not clear what the "Cana" in his name refers to. There were in fact Syrian Christians in India from an early date; they would have come overland.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Cuchullain: It does not make sense to describe him as Syrian since it is a modern nationality. Using stories to guess would just be speculation. Additionally, this article states that this group of people came by sea, not overland. From which port would they have sailed from?

"According to Chazhikaden, they originated in Judea, and later converted to Christianity, though they maintained their distinct culture and identity."

"Like other Saint Thomas Christians, Southist culture is largely derived from Syriac Christian culture mixed with local Indian customs, with later elements derived from Indian and European contacts."

Both of these statements contradict one another. They cannot possibly be both. AbdulAzizBadawi (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"Syrian" as an ethnicity or regional identity isn't modern; for instance the Roman Provincia Syria was established in the 1st century BC. In this context, "Assyrian" is just a conventional name largely meaning the same thing. In the context of Indian Christianity, "Syrian" is the preferred term, as the sources attest (as in "East Syrian" or "West Syrian" Christian rites). And again, Thomas of Cana is an obscure figure who may be mythical.

On the apparent contradiction, you're misreading the text. The reality is that the Knanaya have the same cultural origins as other St. Thomas Christians (ie, a mix of Syriac Christianity and indigenous Indian culture as well as later contributions). However, in the 1930s, Joseph Chazhikaden wrote a book that claimed the Knanaya actually descended from ancient Jews. The article is clear that while "Many Knanaya individuals and organizations accept the account as factual... Swiderski believes the legend was 'conceived and promulgated' by Chazhikaden himself. As with other Knanaya origin traditions, Northists dispute and condemn the story".--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

As a member of the church, I would explain the confusion as:-The forefather's of Knanaya's are considered as Syrian, in the sense someone who spoke Syriac and a Jew in the sense a Jew who has converted to Christianity. This is why both Syrian and Jewish descendancy is mentioned. Syriac in traditions (as in "East Syrian" or "West Syrian" Christian rites). Indian christians especially those origin from the south consider themselves as an intermix group of Jews, Indigenous Christians and high order Hindus. This is a fact that is sampled and accepted through genome research and by all churches of South Indian origin. I hope the Syrian and Jew confusion is cleared. Today, what makes Knanaya's different are our traditions, which is very diverse from other Syrian Christians. Though I wouldn't read much into the continuously slammed Southist and Northist Theory.(But it is fun to read and gain first hand knowledge on how to do such heinous things scrupulously.) Just read other concerns in the talk page, for future readers go with: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knanaya&oldid=693628604

Syriac speaking Jews? No. We speak Hebrew not Syriac. Syriac speakers are Assyrians. You are not Jews. You not follow halakha. You do not keep kosher or shomer shabbat. Just because you consider yourself to be Jews does not make you Jewish. Apply to be an Israeli citizen and you will be rejected. OmerMizrahi (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody said about being a Jew or readying to apply for citizenship. Jews who converted to Christianity that is the descendancy and Syrian in following rites.117.215.194.209 (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent

This article needs a re-write. Information obtained should be parallel with what the church's official page says.At least certain contested sources should be supported by era parallel sources. Removing contested issues and creating a short version of the article, would be more beneficial.117.248.62.220 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

117.248.62.220, from the details you have provided they look perfectly acceptable. @User:Cuchullain, If the views of these writer is controversial, just present them in a neutral way and clearly attribute them to the particular scholar - and avoid presenting them as if they are widely held if they aren't or that they represent some kind of definitive "truth". Also try to present all the significant views on Knanaya in a summary style (without giving minority views undue weight because you happen to like and magnify their arguments) and leave it to the reader to make any judgements they want to or Create a subarticle for the controversial part, if they are not WP:FRINGE.117.215.195.58 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

My comments above stand. Stop pretending to be different unrelated people and respond to the points I've made repeatedly, and we can talk. Until then, I'm done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed most of the problematic content. In case of anything missed, do remove it and Cuchullain stop drooling with WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Accept changes and move on with it. The content is too controversial to include, no grudges and reverts I hope. As 117.248.62.220 said otherwise discuss era parallel resources for controversial content in talk page and then include them after gaining consensus.117.215.198.22 (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

To repeat what I said when you tried this exact same thing last month, "My comments above stand. Stop pretending to be different unrelated people and respond to the points I've made repeatedly, and we can talk. Until then, I'm done."--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop removing well cited content. This is edit warring and POV-pushing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop supporting and vandalizing the page continuously with discredited sources that can invite edit-war when most of its theories are not considered valid. Also stop edit warring and go for discussion in any other matters related. If you find it important add controversial elements start a new article for it. The WP:NOTGETTINGIT requires to be popped, either pop it yourself or let it be there, but shouldn't disrupt articles with it.117.215.195.84 (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The only reason there's an edit war is because you are using a variety of IP addresses to excise well-cited material you dislike. It hasn't worked out for you in the past, and it's not going to work now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Still pushing with WP:NOTGETTINGIT Bill. Conflicting sources-A Big NO, that's all. Looking through the page its time for you to WP:LETGO and consider Wikipedia:It's not the End of the World, this is all in a friendly manner. You may gain blocks for your pov through certain admins, but that not a good practise.117.215.195.84 (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The page has been protected for a full year thanks to your disruption. I strongly suggest that you either try to hash out the problems here, or move on with your life. If you want to make changes, do the following:

• Register *one* account, and stop jumping around on IP addresses pretending to be multiple unrelated people. No one is fooled by your sock puppetry.
• Stop casting aspersions and making accusations about other editors. The one being disruptive here is you. You can stop that at any time.
• If you want to challenge the Swiderski sources, provide some sources of the same caliber that dispute his findings, if they exist. Then we can discuss how to include both viewpoints. Otherwise, it's a non-starter.
• If you want to add or change other material, provide sources that are reliable in this field that explicitly support the material. It is not acceptable to introduce uncited, poorly cited, or misrepresented material into the article, as virtually all of your edits have done.
• Watch your English.

If you do those relatively simple things, I'd be happy to work with you on improving the article. Otherwise, you'll continue to find yourself unable to work on the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Psthomas (talk · contribs · count), your disruptive socking has gone on for far too long. No new accounts, you are blocked from editing and shouldn't be doing so as an IP or under any other new user name. Given that, any and all your contributions, to articles, talk pages, user talk pages etc can be summarily removed. —SpacemanSpiff 17:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)