Talk:Mylapore

A nice page. Congrats! --Bhadani 16:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please include the fact that arrival of St Thomas is highly questionable. For a complete review of this subject visit hamsa.org

History Seection

St Thomas

The discussion on St. Thomas shows a strong bias and cited a resource that had a clear adgenda. The text was changed to remove the bias and match the rest of the article.

Text on FEB 19 2010: "Mylapore is also recently 'claimed' to be associated with the legend of St. Thomas, who was supposedly to have been buried at a place called Mylapore. But this theory was disputed by Vatican and it declared that St.Thomas was buried in Vatican. A short biography of St.Thomas supposedly mentions a six year long association of the Apostle with Mylapore. But 'The Myth of St.Thomas' by Koenraad Elst postulates that St.Thomas might have never visited Mylapore and Malabar was the only place to be visited by him."

Changed text: "Christians regard Mylapore as the original burial site of St. Thomas the Apostle, before his body was moved to Edessa.[10] The San Thome Basilica stands on this site. [11]"

Religious issues are inherently controversial. Let us limit ourselves to STATING what a certain religious group believes, and not write endless arguments for or against a religious view. An encyclopedia's purpose is to STATE information, anything else makes the article appear unprofessional.

JNG71886 (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thiruvalluvar

I have a similar opinion here about arguing as I did with the St Thomas section. I made some changes but, I would appreciate it if someone would verify it. I know more about the subject of St Thomas.

Text removed: "although this claim is disputed. "

Statements "it is said" or "(a certain group) regards/believes" establish that the subject is controversial and not accepted by all. No further arguments are necessary. JNG71886 (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)