Talk:Saint Thomas Christians

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 ([1]), 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[2] --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. [3]. 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]"[4] - 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 [5]). According to 2011 Census (provisional), total population of Kerala has grown to 33.38 million. Assuming the Syrian Christian percentage at 12.25%[6] 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)

Acts of Thomas

Is it Frykenberg, Bornkamm or both who believe that the Acts of Thomas were probably written in the 2nd century? Baum (p. 51) thinks that it was early 3rd century, and I seem to be finding quite a few others who say the same. Furthermore, do we really need both Frykenberg and Bornkamm as sources for that sentence? - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Frykenberg says second century; I don't know about the other. However, this book actually on the Acts of Thomas says "it is generally assumed that the Acts of Thomas have to be dated to the beginning of the third century" (p. 15). This edition of the same explains this, suggesting that the work may be closely related to the Acts of Peter, in which case it was "written in the beginning of the third century" (p. 26). This book by Bart Ehrman says "... it is difficult to know when the Acts of Thomas was written; most scholars have dated it to the third century and assumed it was written in Edessa..." (p. 122) I suggest we change it to "third century" and add one of these sources as a cite, perhaps removing Bornkamm unless someone else can verify it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Citekill issue

There are a host of sources cited for "He spent his days in prayer and meditation in a hut. A few relatives and friends joined him there.^{[50][53][54][55][56]}" and the preceding bit of the paragraph. It looks likely to be a WP:CITEKILL situation but the sources are mostly written in Malayalam, and thus WP:NOENG also kicks in. Is there no single English language source that covers these statements, even if it means losing some small detail?

Most of the material on the later history needs a complete and total overhaul.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Issue #2

And there is also

The Archbishop convened the Synod of Diamper, which implemented various liturgical and structural reforms in the Indian church. The Synod brought the parishes directly under the Archbishop's purview; anathematised certain "superstitious" social customs characteristic of their Hindu neighbors, including untouchability and a caste hierarchy; and purged the indigenous liturgy, the Malabar Rite, of elements deemed unacceptable according to the Latin protocol.^{[34][35][36][37][38][39]} A number of texts were condemned and ordered burnt, including the Peshitta, the Syriac version of the Bible.^{[34][35][40][41]}

Do we really need all of those citations? - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This was a result of the merge a while back. The main cites for the first two sentences are Neill and Vadakkekara; Prasad is the source for the bit on "untouchability" (Neill doesn't elaborate upon the "superstitious" customs on that page). For those sentences we'll need those three, but neither Menachery cite has page numbers, so they can go, as can Geddes, as it's a primary source. On the last sentence, I think we can lose the footnote naming all the books that were destroyed and narrow it down to one source indicating that a number of texts including the Peshitta were destroyed - but we'll need page numbers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

George Menachery

As much as I appreciate the academic status of George Menachery, I think that wherever possible we should limit our use of works written or edited by him. In other words, if there are alternate reliable sources then we should use those. My rationale is that GM has a close connection to the entire Saint Thomas Christian milieu and, qualifications etc aside, is potentially compromised. Yes, I do understand the notion of academic peer reviews etc but, believe me, I have come across plenty who know how to work the system. I am not accusing Menachery of any such behaviour, but if we do not have to rely on him then there is no reason why we should. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree here. Menachery is one of the top scholars on this subject and few works can match his St. Thomas Christian Encyclopedia in breadth and depth. In terms of an overview perhaps the only source that's substantially better will be Neill. However, I do agree with removing cites to Menachery that don't have page numbers and have another source to verify the material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I too disagree with Sitush here. Only issue with Menacherry is the unavailability of his books on-line. I have attended a conference presided by him; his knowledge on this subject is nearly complete --218.248.72.195 (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Consistency in naming

The Saint Thomas Christians are variously referred to in the article by that name, "St. Thomas Christians" and "Syrian Christians". Please can we standardise this, except where the reference occurs within a citation or when there is some other pressing need? Usually, the standard is the article title because that is deemed to have consensus; in this instance, I am not so sure because it is a bit of a handful to keep typing/reading in the text. Since "Syrian Christians" is a redirect, "St. Thomas Christians" would seem to be the way to go. Or perhaps even "STCs" after the first mention in any section. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely on this. "Syrian Christian" is potentially very confusing, as the article discusses other Syrian Christians outside of India. When we're referring to the Indian group, we need to use "St. Thomas Christians" in most cases.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Population stats

I query the utility of the table headed "Saint Thomas Christian Statistics". The figures are derived from three sources, some are estimates and there appears not to be a consistency of timing: it is a montage of snapshots rather than a single picture. Furthermore, just as WP:RSN has consistently held that the population statistics generated by the Joshua Project are unreliable because it is a Christian missionary/advocacy group, so too these figures have similar origins. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's retain it. I'll try to resolve the multiple source issue. I presume NSC Network is a reliable source for this purpose. --AshLey ^Msg 10:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that NSC is reliable but that might depend on the context: the sources that NSC use seem mostly to be akin to those that the Joshua Project uses, and the JP has been rejected on reliability grounds at WP:RSN. Nor should we necessarily retain content that is poor just because someone might hope to fix it, although often we effectively do this by tagging. Regardless, the first step would be to harmonise the figures so that they all relate to the same timescale etc. It is misleading and somewhat pointless, for example, to show figures from different years. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

NSC: I don't agree. Pls confirm with RSN --AshLey ^Msg 13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We do not run to RSN or any other noticeboard at the first hint of a disagreement. That is an abuse of process and potentially wastes the time of others. I suggest that, as with some of my earlier threads above, we hold off doing something until there has been a reasonable opportunity for others to comment here. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and it would appear that you missed my penultimate sentence. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Jewish descent

Prof Shalva Weil's point is that amongst the Malabar Nasranis there are people of indigenous descent and also descendants of the Jewish diaspora that settled in the Malabar Coast. It is necessary to state as such in the article or else the point is not clear. Just stating the word `indigenous` is not informative that Jewish descent is shared even by the northists and not just the southist group. thanks Robin klein (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Robin klein is referring to this edit, which I have reverted because I could not understand what it was intended to achieve.

I am new to this article and my knowledge of the subject matter comes from a "sideways" perspective, through doing much work on caste-related articles including at least one - Paravar - that has a tangential connection to this subject, I am going to get confused very quickly if people keep using their own pet synonyms of "St Thomas Christians", even more so because it has already become apparent that some of the terms actually have subtle differences in meaning. If the Malabar Nasranis are the St Thomas Christians, as the article appears to say, then please could we stick to the latter rather than indulge in some form of subtle pov pushing or whatever. It makes life a lot easier for simpletons such as myself ;) On the other hand, if there is a difference then I would love to know what it is & probably the article should make it clear also.

I'll take a look at RK's contribution again, bearing in mind their comment above. I certainly do not think that it needs a quotation as it would appear that 2 or 3 words would do the job. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Thanks for the note. Yes 'Malabar Nasrani' refers to the very same people called 'Saint Thomas Christians'. The original term for the so called 'syrian christians of Kerala' is 'Nasrani Mappila' they are also called as 'Malabar Nasranis'. The portuguese called the same people as 'Saint thomas Christians' as they hated any Jewish connotation. 'Nasrani' is a hebrew term referring to early Jewish christians. So all these terms refer to the same people. Yes, you are right one only need to write that "The 'Saint Thomas Christians' are descendants of locals and the Jewish diaspora in the Malabar Coast, who became Christians in the earliest days of Jewish Christianity". (with the necessary citations of course, in this case Shalva Weil, Thomas Puthiakunnel & Ross would be three important citations). Stating the quote from Shalva Weil's paper would help in countering such inadvertent deletion in the future from a new editor. The quote could be stated as a note along with the reference. thanks Robin klein (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "Malabar Nasranis" is a confusing synonym for St. Thomas Christians. The problem with the Weil quote is that it doesn't say that it doesn't say the Northists in particular actually claim Jewish descent, it says this belief is held by "Cnanite or Southist group but also by the wider group of Syrian Christians". The other source makes no such claim either.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you (RK) saying that I deleted a cited quote, before you contributions today? I don't usually do that without a very good reason, so if that is what you are saying then I'd better trawl back through my edits over the last couple of days. And have you seen WP:CITEKILL? Are you saying that your proposed sentence really needs three sources? We would usually only buttress a statement with additional sources if it is subject to controversy or something similar. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush and Cuchullain, I shall put the full quote here from Shalva Weil page 181. "..it should be pointed out that the tradition of Jewish origin or Jewish connections in Kerala is preserved not only by the Cnanite or Southist group but also by the wider group of Syrian Christians, or Northists" (from Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16. pages 175-196. This entire quote is still there in the history of the page edit. I copied now from the page history. I think the new system of representing edit is not good. The earlier system used to show edits in red color and green color so nothing would be missed. I think wikipedia should go back to earlier system of using colour to show changes. This new system does not use colour. Or is it just my computer not showing color? Anyway, so the original text that I posted does refer to the Northists in particular. Please check the edit history. Anyway, Yes, I think three sources (especially from peer reviewed research journals) are needed. This could be controversial for some people. So more citations are needed. thanks Robin klein (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a new bit of code causing you to see that which you do. You will get used to it and, honestly, I think that it is an improvement. I need to do some work on this content issue and it probably will not happen tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall self revert, although I should say that citations and quote from peer reviewed research journal papers have been provided. This matter had already been resolved. Really I am pressured for time. I think it is unfair to again and again gain consensus over the same thing. I hope this can be avoided in the future. I really had devoted a lot of time few months earlier over this same thing. There are other passages in this same article which cites personal publications, websites and what not. Yet it is only the lines with Jewish connotations that are required to cite and quote. And when it is done it has to be done over and over again. All because it is Jewish. I guess the legacies of the Portuguese inquisition on the Nasranis (Saint Thomas Christians) still remains. I sincerely apologize if I come across as harsh, that is not my intent. thanks Robin klein (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that and please do not despair. There are people involved in this article who have far more experience of the subject matter than I do but we are all equal here and things will resolve according to consensus. I happen to live in an area that has one of the highest concentrations of Jewish people in the UK and, please believe me, I count many among my friends and even more among those whom I would trust for advice etc. This is not an issue about religious discrimination etc but rather one about keeping with the bounds of Wikipedia's policies. The Wikipedia "way" has an inherent systemic bias but I really do not think that the present issue under that category. We just need a little time and a little more conversation. Best wishes. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Robin, I personally support your opinion in this issue. But, I'm unable to find an on-line source to verify this matter. Also, we could drill down some sources to see any info on the ethnicity of indigenous converts. If yes, we could add a section to deal with Ethnicity. My equation is: Northists = Aryan + Dravidian + Jew. Could you please help me. --AshLey ^Msg 11:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a source, a peer reviewed academic journal paper by a Scholar from Hebrew University Jerusalem. Here is the page number and the quote. I shall put the full quote here from Shalva Weil page 181.

"..it should be pointed out that the tradition of Jewish origin or Jewish connections in Kerala is preserved not only by the Cnanite or Southist group but also by the wider group of Syrian Christians, or Northists" (from Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16. pages 175-196.

thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire Thomas of Cana story can be disputed. It is a legend and there is next to nothing that supports his presence. I have no problem with saying "... Thomas of Cana, a Jewish Christian, ..." because that is what Baum appears to be saying on the page cited in the article. But we should also note that the entire thing is another traditional myth of origin (as Weil also says). I still do not see why we need multiple citations as proposed above, nor the significance of the Weil quote. I still not do see where in that quote Weil says that the Northists claim an origin from Thomas of Cana, since he explicitly says "Jewish origin or Jewish connections", and the two are not the same thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Northists do NOT claim descent from Thomas of Cana. That is the point. The Southists claim to have arrived in Kerala from the Levant in the 4th Century C.E. while the Northists claim to be descendants of the local converts and converted Jewish diaspora who were present in 1st century C.E. when Thomas the apostle arrived in Kerala to convert the Jewish settlers in Kerala. What Shalva Weil is stating is that the difference between the Southists and the Northists is that the Southists trace descent from Knai Thoman who arrived in the 4th century C.E. and the Northists trace descent from the converted natives and converted Jewish trading settlers who were present in Kerala in the 1st century C.E. These are two different groups within the Nasranis (Saint Thomas Christians) who have two different accounts of their lineage. thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that the Northist do not claim descent from Thomas of Cana, and the article already saus that. I still do not see the point of the Weil quotation - it adds nothing to what the article already says, since it does not refer to Jewish trader settlers etc in the 1st century etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Weil quotation makes it clear that there is claim of the Northists to Jewish descent. This is not mentioned in the article and it needs to be mentioned. Also there is a paper by Thomas Puthiakunnel (1973) which states that Jewish trading posts paved way for the Saint Thomas Christian tradition. This needs to be mentioned in the article. thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not. I have already explained why this is so. You are misreading what Weil says, at least in that quotation. Weil is specific in saying "origin or connections"; not "origin", nor "origin and connections". - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Shalva Weil also states in her paper "Kerala ’known through intensive trade ... was already a melting pot of numerous religions’ (Thomas 1980: 6)." (page 181)

and another quote from page 183

"St. Thomas is said to have established seven churches in Kerala-at Maliankara, Palayour, Kottakkavu, Kokkamangalam, Quilon, Niranam and Nilakkal-in at least two places--Palayour (Paloor) and Quilon (Kallam) - where Jewish communities were known to have been in existence. Segal points out that ’it is almost axiomatic that Christian missionaries should have used Jewish centres ... as their base of activity’" quote from page 183 from Shalva Weil. thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I still do not see the point. Is this paper available online somewhere? It might be easier if I read the entire thing because all of these quotes are quite clearly lacking in context. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The context of the quotes is very clear. This is a paper showing the relations between the Malabar Nasranis (Saint Thomas Christians) and the cochin/Malabar Jews in general and that of the Knanaya people and Cochin/malabar jews in particular. Why are you showing distrust in me. Wikipedia is based on equal trust and good faith on all editors. I don't see that happen here. I have given several quotes and page numbers. The context is clear. It is legitimate to restore the statement about Jewish descent of the Northists. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not distrusting you. I would just like to see the paper and I am concerned that you may not be correctly interpreting what you are reading, as is certainly the case with the initial quote that you provided. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No I did not misinterpret her quote. Here is yet another quote from Shalva Weil from the same paper, page 182. You would know why I have not misinterpreted her quote. "St. Thomas retired to the Jewish quarter in Cranganore, where he took up residence. Apparently, St. Thomas regularly attended synagogue where he preached about Jesus, the Messiah. He explained to the Jews the meaning of the Scripture and he spoke to them of Jesus, his miracles, of his death, of his resurrection. And many believed. Rabbi Paul demanded baptism ... and other families followed his example. And the Jews who remained obdurate gave the numerous Christians the name Nazarins." (from Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16. pages 175-196). It is now legitimate to restore the statement about Jewish descent of the Northists. thanks Robin klein (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You did, and I have explained why on several occasions - as a standalone quote, it does not support your proposed statement. None of these quotes seem to mean much at all in relation to your original point, although I am beginning to wonder if you have changed your intent & whether that might be a part of the confusion. This is why it would perhaps be easier if the article was made available for others to view. I will ask for a copy at WP:RX later today. I would be interested anyway to see what she has to say about the entire myth issue, since she seems to be saying all sorts as if they were truths when, in fact, the general opinion seems to be that there simply is not sufficient documentation etc to validate much at all. This distortion sometimes happens when quotes are taken out of context. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have now asked for a copy at WP:RX. Please note that it seems likely your citation is incorrect - I think that it should be Weil, Shalva. (1992). "Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Canaanite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala". Indian Sociology. 16 (2). {{cite journal}}: Text "pages 175-196" ignored (help), per this source. According to GScholar, that article has been cited around 25 times, but there are different spellings being shown. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No she is not saying all sorts of things as if they were truths, that would not be a fair statement on this scholar. If you want to accuse me then it is fine but I don't think it is fair to accuse her when she may not be there to defend herself. She is aware of the several different myth of St Thomas in Kerala. She is only discussing why the Jewish descent of Northists is more probable.

The copy that I have says:

Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: the Cnanite Christians and the Cochin Jews of Kerala Shalva Weil Contributions to Indian Sociology 1982 16: 175 DOI: 10.1177/006996678201600202

The year of publication is (1982). It is not (1992) as you mentioned it. Please check it. thanks Robin klein (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly why proper citations are important. It could have been reproduced later, of course, or it could be an error in the source that I linked. But we all need to sing off the same hymn sheet and to do that it is important to include full details, including the doi, the edition of a book etc. It can be obtained from here, and I will go add that to my RX request now. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This could be helpful.[7] New World Encyclopedia - Saint Thomas Christians.117.196.135.87 (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The New World Encyclopedia is not a reliable source, as per past discussions at WP:RSN. Among other issues, it is a product of the Moonies and is fundamentally a mirror of our content with adjustments to suit the viewpoint of that church. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet another quote from another peer reviewed academic paper. This is a quote from Ross I.J. (1979) University of Texas Publication. "Ritual and music form a close relationship in the life of the Syrian-Christian community. Similarities between the rites and customs of the Syrian Christians and the Jews of Kerala reflect a possible common origin in the ancient Middle East, and serve as heuristic evidence in support of the historical claims of both communities." (from Ross, Israel J. (1979) "Ritual and Music in South India: Syrian Christian Liturgical Music in Kerala." Asian Music. 11 (1): 80-98) This quote states that the Cochin Jews and Nasranis (a.k.a syrian christians of kerala a.k.a Saint Thomas Christians) share a common origin. This is stated clearly. I hope the editors would stop insulting me by stating that I do not know to read english or that I do not know to interpret english text or that only their interpretation is somehow more valid and accurate. This is a quote from Ross from the University of Texas. At least I can try and provide quote from a valid source even though I am inferior and stupid according to so called NEUTRAL editors who claim to have no hidden agenda. At least please try to respect international scholars from world class universities. thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That quote shows, yet again, that you are not fully comprehending that which you read. It does not say that the groups you refer to "share a common origin". What it says is "reflect a possible common origin", which is quite a different statement. I am unsure of the relationship between Ross's "Jews of Kerala" and your "Cochin Jews", but it does not matter greatly because you are misrepresenting the source in any event. Given this ongoing issue of comprehension, I think that it may be necessary to review all of your contributions to articles, unless you want to self-review them and demonstrate a competence to do so. It is unfortunate but there is potentially a quite big problem here. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is another quote from Ross I. J. "history of the Syrian Christian community in many respects parallels that of the Jews of Kerala. Like the Jews of Cochin (a coast city with one of the principal ports in South India) page 80-81 Also there is the traditional Ramban Song of the syrian christians which is sung during weddings. It mentions that the early people converted by Saint Thomas the apostle included the locals and the Jewish diaspora. I had also cited the Ramban song in the article, but the citation was removed. ("The Song of Thomas Ramban" in Menachery G (ed); (1998) "The Indian Church History Classics", Vol. I, The Nazranies, Ollur, 1998. [ISBN 81-87133-05-8]) Removing citations without discussion in tantamount to vandalism and that has led to this problem. I am now wondering how you went about removing references and citations without discussion and ask everybody else to engage in discussion to add even a line. The statement in contention talks about the claim of the saint thomas christians of jewish origin which is mentioned in the Ramban song sung at weddings and the claim is supported by the conclusion of Ross "Similarities between the rites and customs of the Syrian Christians and the Jews of Kerala reflect a possible common origin in the ancient Middle East, and serve as heuristic evidence in support of the historical claims of both communities". page 88. thanks Robin klein (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that this has gone on long enough, Robin. You are not making any progress because you are either clutching at straws, unintentionally misreading or deliberately misrepresenting. I suspect the middle of those three. I am at a loss regarding how to deal with this situation, which is beginning to take on a somewhat tendentious appearance. Your latest quote also does not verify your proposed statement, and you have had input from two other people in this thread who also feel that your earlier stuff did not verify it. Perhaps now is the time to go away and spend a while constructing a rock-solid proposal that does not rely on misinterpreted sources. Sorry, but I really do not think that this is going anywhere right now: Wikipedia will still be here in a week or a month, or however long it takes to construct a workable proposal that complies with policy (& using a song as a source does not!). - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The ramban song is the traditional song. Yes it is just a song. But unfortunately the Ramban song is one oral tradition that one has to rely on for reference as does even Fryknberg (2008) even he referes to it in page 92 of his work. If you feel there needs to be a better proposal then as a collaborative wiki exercise what do you propose. The nasranis do claim Jewish descent and scholars say that it is probable. Well, what do you suggest. How should it be written based on the quotes. thanks Robin klein (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I really do not know what the solution is, other than what I have already said or you amending your proposed statement. Alas, Wikipedia does have numerous forms of systemic bias and dealing with the oral history tradition is a big problem for India-related stuff. There appear to be reliable sources that touch on the possibility of a connection etc, so perhaps rewording is your best solution until you can find something that more strongly supports what you consider to be correct. However, with so many sources referring to the possibility, the chances are now quite high that even if you did find a source that was adamant, well, we would still have to point out that other sources are rather more tentative. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, Thanks for the response. For the time being a rewording seems a better option. What do you suggest? Could you please suggest a rewording that could be valid given these sources and quote. Please do state it here. thanks Robin klein (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)