Talk:History of the Saint Thomas Christians

Syrians of thrissur/northern ernakulam

the originial suriyani christians are now concentrated on kottayam,pathanamthitta,idukki,eastern ernakulam(kunnathnad,muvattupuzha,kothamangalam) and north eastern parts of kollam district. during the early times,before portugese arrival, from 8th century onwards, many persian jew converts also settled in the kollam region.there were many eastern christians who migrated from iran and other parts who became part of the travancore syrian christians. during tipu's invasions, the 4 lakh syrian christians who were dwelling upto mangalore and beyond fled to south and settled in alapuzha,ernakulam districts.

coming to the main allegation: the syrian christian claimants in thrissur region including angamaly,kaladi are doubtfully of any suriyani old converts.these people are converted by portugese,suspected since only 20-22 families in whole of thrissur district can claim their suriyani ancestory properly.most others have the prominent family names conveniently "lifted" and used. the regions doubtful of are syrian christians - n.paravoor,kodungallur,chavakkad,guruvayoor,kunnamkulam,thrissur.only syrian christian bastion is OLLUR,near thrissur.others are Latin Catholics Who disguised as Syro Malabar Christians.

Whatever told above are common knowledge among Travancore Suriyani Christians.No Offense Intended.I am seeking if there is any documented source to show this claim. 204.56.73.56 (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Foreshortened article

Note that this is a deliberately foreshortened article, intended to share history among today's seven Christian churches, until the 17th century at which time the much larger local church broke free from the control of the much tinier Latin church, which has continued until the present day. Student7 (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently contains histories merged from five churches and is linked to by them as their "main" history article:

1. Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church
2. Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
3. Chaldean Syrian Church
4. Jacobite Syrian Christian Church
5. Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. Never cleared their old history so now they have two side by side!
6. Have also merged a sixth history from "Saint Thomas Christian Tradition", but it does not link here.

Student7 (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

page duplication alert

separate article on ST. thomas christian history already exists

editors are please requested to check wikipedia pages before they create new pages, in order to avoid duplication. A separate article dealing with history of the saint thomas christian history already exists. It is called History of the Saint Thomas Christian tradition. It has been in existence for a long time and with references. It has been edited by several hundreds of people over a long time.

A new article without references has been created on the same topic called History of the Saint Thomas Christians by largely a single author user:student7 only two weeks ago on 2nd of may 2009. Much of the new article is without references and most of all the topic is a duplication of a page that already exists. It has to be redirected to the already existing article that is being constantly edited by several hunderds of people over a long time. Vagab (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with the history of the article St. Thomas Christian tradition. But it is a subsection of an article and not standalone. A stand-alone article is needed so all churches can link to it. It probably needs to be broken off and merged with this one to form an integral history. The tradition article itself cannot be used as a history since it contains details about the modern churches.

There are many articles on history, all of them quite different, contradictory and not always believable - DNA claims of Jewish ancestry, claims to be related to Brahmins, etc. This can be in there but needs scholarly criticism to balance it when necessary and available. So the problem for the contributing editor is not to discover an article out there on history - it's discovering how many articles out there. I count at least five more. But there may be ten or fifteen more, most of which needs some kind of merge. The information in them is often quite jumbled. The idea is to put them all in one place, when they are located and try to get all editors working on the same history from the early times through the Coonan Cross incident.

I just copied and merged the best referenced (best linked) material from the history subsections of the articles on five of the seven (or ten?) churches and used it. I was not the author, per se. The material there is perhaps as old as the material in St. Thomas Christian tradition. The original five articles jointly had a number of authors.

I am not the "owner" of this article. I welcome footnoted (or linked) changes and updates. No reason the article name can't change, if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs)

this is a WP:CFORK issue, and it needs to be fixed. If you are aware of Saint Thomas Christian tradition, why do you develop a counter-article and refuse to crosslink it? There needs to be a {{merge}} between the two (either direction) asap. --dab (𒁳) 09:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, there are not just these two articles, one of which (this one) is currently being used by five churches. There are also another 2 or 3 that I know of and doubtlessly more hidden someplace that I don't know about. They started separate articles on their churches, some by screaming newbies that no one wanted to deal with. One of the problems is that several of the churches may not get along with each other that well. Written by insider fanatics, they were not the best people to deal with the material. I am the consummate outsider. I have no pov. All I want to do is to see valid history, supported by links and WP:RELY footnotes. If there is no support under one article. I will try one of the others until most are integrated.

But this is an article. "..tradition" contains history. It is not a history article. Linking to it from the other churches would be misleading.

As far as doing it "instantly", the articles have all been separated (as have the churches themselves!) for several years. A few more weeks won't hurt anyone. It needs to be done slowly and methodically to ensure that everyone's concerns are met. Student7 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

you are right, there is no deadline, but this needs to be done properly, and unresolved issues need to be duly tagged. As I said, the merger can go either way. The "tradition" article's content is mostly history. It may be a good idea to merge the articles and move the result to this title. --dab (𒁳) 18:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The merger has been declined by editors of the other article. I would like to remove the "merge" template from this article, so I may continue merging material from the other two or three church articles that still remain.Student7 (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

deliberate deletion of references and insertion of statements while copying by Student7

Yes, I agree with Dbachmann, this page has to be redirected to the already existing page on Saint Thomas Christian tradition. The editor user:student7 claims that he has copied material from other wikipedia pages to create a comprehensive section on the history of the Nasranis. However if one reads carefully, it would be seen that he has deliberately removed all the references to the referenced passages about the possible Jewish heritage of the Nasranis. He has also inserted statements by removing original passages from other pages that he has copied from. This in wikipedia terms is called as Vandalism. To insert ones own pov by removing referenced passages. He has also deliberately removed references to anything related to the Jewish origins of the Nasranis.

His real motive in creating the page is clear. It is to write his own version of nasrani history and remove all references to jewish heritage. He pretends to be a serious editor seeking footnotes. But instead he is removing references and passages and inserting statements. Vagab (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The history states early on "There were Jewish groups in South India before the Christian era."

It needs a reference. Can you supply one?

Please WP:AGF.

And, no. Removing duplicate, WP:UNDUE, or unreferenced material from articles is not called vandalism. It is called "editing." Student7 (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

well, redirecting content forks is also not vandalism but simply "editing", and since this article was created as a content fork, I suggest we now merge it. --dab (𒁳) 12:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dbachmann, This page has to be redirected to the page Saint Thomas Christian Tradition. I have checked the entire page History of the Saint Thomas Christians. It is full of POV vedic hinduism and brahminical propaganda. Why is the editor going ahead with merger when the consensus is not in favour of a merger. Please redirect the page History of the Saint Thomas Christians to the page Saint Thomas Christian tradition. Robin klein (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh. "vedic hinduism and brahminical propaganda?" What? Like what? I am hardly familiar enough with either to tell (obviously). The three of you may be singing off the same sheet, but you do have a problem here with ten (or whatever) churches, which have trouble naming themselves, much less coming up with a common history! It's all well and nice to say this should be redirected, but what about the other five churches which now reference the material represented here (apparently vedic, etc.). They aren't represented with you three.

Feel free to edit this history. I'm not married to it! It would be nice if it is footnoted. BTW, we are still lacking a lot of credible footnotes.

I am satisfied that you want to be the highest level article in a system that links the other dozen churches but maybe contains more. This is a history only of 54- to Coonan Cross, a limited history. The church histories diverge at that point. If you don't like the name, feeling that it conflicts with yours, fine. Suggest a change. The name is not crucial to me since it is linked by the other five churches. I'm not looking to be the "center of attention" here. Just trying to fulfill an unfilled niche of merging a dozen diffent histories. You have written your own which you are happy with, that goes beyond this one. That is fine too.

The Wikipedia world has long continued with a dozen histories in the past. Coping with two should be a bit easier IMO.

Since the major hangup is the name, suggest a new one that makes some sense and I will move the material there. The ball is in your court. I do need to include the dates in the new article name since it is delimited. "Vedic version of Christian History 54-" should not be one of the choices!  :) How about "History of Malabar Christians 54-1663". I will add a "see also" for your history even though they overlap, but don't have to.

Your "rough chronology" is not that great BTW. You are no longer looking at your article with the idea that it can be improved, but with the idea that it is so perfect, that it can't be improved. The history may have been pretty good a year or two ago, but it has some serious drawbacks.

If you want me to merge mine into yours, I can do that, but the process will be messy. From your point of view, it would be much easier to critique this one here, out of your normal path of editing, rather than have me trying to argue with you over stylistic and WP:RELY references in an article you normally look at every day.

Like it or not, I am neutral. Most of you have some pov. That is the problem with your article.

If you are saying that the Christians survived for 1500 years with almost no outside contact with the West and did not acquire any practices from Hinduism, I would really wonder BTW. Student7 (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

redirect page

The editors have stopped the merger of materials of already existing pages on Saint Thomas Christian tradition on to this new page duplication. Hence this page duplication has to be redirected to the already existing page Saint Thomas Christian tradition Vagab (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Won't work for reasons discussed on that page.Student7 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

History changes needed

Two respected editors with credentials contacted me and stated the following:

"That template's content was of the view that Jacobite Syrian Church came under Antiochene Patriach only in the 16th century which is not a view accepted by all but a portion of the historians of Indian Church. Such a POV should not be put in that article."

Chart: "The Malankara Catholic Church split from the Malankara Orthodox Church not from Jacobite Syrian Church. You can check it over the internet."

A second editor states --Antiochean bishops in Kerala-- "The Jacobite Syrian Church came under Antiochene Patriarch only in the 16th century, is not a correct statement. A section of that Church came under the Antiochene Patriarch only in 1876. (ME. Edavom 19, 1051) at the Synod of Mulanthuruthi. (For details refer: Mulanthuruthi Padiola)"

"There is a common belief that bishops from Antioch who had visited the Malankara Church regularly, had some kind of jurisdiction over the Malankara Church. Many people may believe it. But there is no historical evidence to support this belief. To understand how they happened to come to Malankara (Kerala), purpose of their visit, how they spent their time there, and why most of them were banished from Kerala are given in the annals of the Dutch East India Company. (Ref:Press List of Ancient Dutch Records-1657-1825.)"

"Moreover, It is believed by many, that Mar Gregorius Abdul Jaleel who confirmed the consecration of Mar Thoma I in 1665 came from Antioch. But recent discoveries of some of his own papers, throw doubt on this claim."

The above, of course, is why we need a common history, not one that represents a single pov. That is what this history was trying to create. Student7 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

ME

FYI. An editor has started to include the non-standard "ME" (Malayam Year) to some dates. This date must be added to 824 (or 825!) to obtain the standard year for Wikipedia.Student7 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Fictitious remarks

Any objection in removing the unrelated Fictitious remarks given in the section The state of the church just prior to the arrival of the Portuguese. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Forked Article

I recommend removing this article as its entirely forked by copying the various other articles. This forking has been going on some of the articles on Saint Thomas Christians, where some editors just wanted to club different articles with no references.

Recommend removal of the forked page.Pamparam (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I originally merged this article from all the other articles. It is the only article that is used by several churches. All the others have their own history. I stopped work on it when three editors from the church history I had just merged wanted me, instead, to used their history, which I had just merged into this one.

Remember, this only covers up to Conan Cross. Deliberately. After that, the history of the churches diverges. The histories are not the same as the other seven churches after that date! As far as I know, this is the only history that observes that obvious deadline. A successor history should do the same. There should ultimately be five more (short) histories, which each church shares with at least one other church. Once we get this major history done, the others should come easier.

As far as mechanics go, this would be "redirected" (not "forked" whatever you meant by that) to the newly merged article. However, a target article would have to be selected and agreed upon in advance by the other editors. Typically they will only agree on the one they happen to be editing. That is the main problem and always has been. They are extremely jealous of new arrivals and new approaches.

A method of summarization needs to be addressed. Some church articles are so small, that embedding this length of text would be overwhelming to their tiny article. I suggest a text template so each summary would be identical. See my solution (use "edit" to peek) from where this history is linked.

We still have a lot of discussion ahead of us before anything can be done. Student7 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As suggested i have moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Christianity and hope that a consensus can be reached about the scope of all the Six articles.Pamparam (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Common History

There are Six articles which claim common history of Saint Thomas Christians out of this 4 have almost similar contents about the same period. To avoid repetitive articles and to improve the quality of the article, share about WP:RELY sources and re organization of these articles.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Christianity#About the articles on Saint Thomas Christians common historyPamparam (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet a new attempt to submerge this history inside an old pov article.....Student7 (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Old Party/New Party

I think these words need to appear in common history. This canbe followed by a disclaimer that these titles appeared to favor the "old party", the Catholics over those rebelling from them and are now not used. Assuming this is true. This should not be the only place in the world where that is true! Student7 (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

East Syrian/West Syrian

The chart shows a schism in 1665, between West Syrian and East Syrian liturgy/control. Someone tried to explain this. This was deleted. Not sure why. It appears as a fork on the chart. Student7 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Common history

Very often comments appear in Wikipedia under the assumption that Saint Thomas Christians, before the arrival of Portuguese, had a common history, without realizing that there is no such history. The St. Thomas Christians before 1500, consisted of at least four groups: and so they have their own histories. At a close study of these groups, even today their differences in worship and beliefs are clearly visible. All these groups try to put their history and their beliefs into these articles with the result that all related articles become confused.

• 1. . St. Thomas Nazrani (Known as Marthoma Nazrani at the time of arrival of Portuguese) - The original converts of St. Thomas. They had their own elders to lead them.
  2. . Syrian Christians, Northists. – Children of Knai Thomman by his first wife. (who arrived in AD 345),
  3. . Syrian Christians, Southists. – Children of Knai Thomman by his second wife.
  4. . Syrian Christians who arrived from Persia in A.D. 825. It is believed that with them came two bishops.

Visitors from Persia and Middle East used to visit Malabar to meet their friends, relatives (who came earlier from Persia) and their descendents. Whether they were bishops, priests or laymen, most of them were addressed as “Bava” (bishop). These visits made others believe that Syrian Christians were ruled by bishops from Persia. Neither knowing the language nor the culture, these visitors lived at the mercy of the Syrian Christians and spent their time teaching their mother tongue, Syriac. Some of these visitors returned, but most of them lived and died in Kerala.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish history - Edna Fernandez - the last Jews of Kerala

(The above comment needs a good answer. Got one from Matan..cherry on another page.)

I would like to comment on Fernandez as a reliable source. See http://newhumanist.org.uk/1828/the-last-jews-of-kerala-by-edna-fernandes Reviewer is not that impressed because Fernandez left out too much. He does not recommend the book.

Amazon reviewers did not care for it See http://www.amazon.com/Last-Jews-Kerala-Forgotten-Community/dp/1602392676

More importantly, she is not a historian, but a reporter. If it were that easy to "report" the landing of Jews 1000, 2000, 3000 years ago and we could show footage, well, no problem. It isn't that easy, and the history rather doubtful. We can only quote noted, scholarly, WP:RELY authors here. She clearly isn't one of those for this purpose. Student7 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

contents have been merged

contents of this page has been merged to Saint Thomas Christian churches as per Talk:Saint Thomas Christians