Talk:Saint Thomas Christians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject India / Kerala (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Kerala (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.
WikiProject Christianity / India / Syriac (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Syriac Christianity work group (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on the Oriental Orthodox Church on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pentecostal St Thomas Christians.[edit]

It is true that there are Pentecostal St Thomas Christians. This can also be seen as seperate articles are already there for some of the St. Thomas Pentecostal churches. I do not understand what @Sitush: is wanting as citation. Even as perWP:Burden, the editors should allow time to add citations by adding citation needed tags, before deleting a portion. --~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 12:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You had 20 minutes after saying you were going to do something. After my revert, you reinstated and said that we should check out the linked articles. I don't want to: find a source that supports your statement that some STCs are Pentecostalists - they are that many different versions of this group that I'm beginning to wonder whether it is really a coherent group at all. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
First of all I didn't say I would do something. All editors are equally responsible to find citations to support the statements in an article before deleting. Also Pentecostals arer not a coherent group in a sense but that does not mean they do not exist. I request give it some time. --~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 12:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
No, if you are going to wikilawyer then at least understand the "laws". The burden is on you to comply with our policies and those policies include WP:V. In any event, the phrasing of the addition was poor - for example, do you really think that "attracted quite a few" is encyclopaedic? Sitush (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you that the phrases may not be "encyclopedic", but I suppose, that does not qualify for the paragraph to be deleted without consensus, especially if it has internal wikilinks. That said do you really believe that there are no Pentecostal St Thomas Christians? If yes, what about the other linked articles? If no, how would you present the fact that there are such groups in this article? by deleting the whole paragraph? I didn't think it was right, so I reverted your edit. I think the paragrapgh should be modified so that only facts may be stated. ~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 04:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I think @Sitush: has agreed with me on this point and the paragrapgh should be reintroduced and given time to provide citations. ~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 08:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I've no idea why you think I'd had some sort of Damascene moment here. If I agreed with you then I would say so. I refer you again to WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN and WP:V. Now, please find some decent sources. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
OK. With your attitude I should go ahead and delete all those sentences in the Wiki which have no sources, that too without giving any time to add sources or adding citation needed templates. Isn't it?--~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 12:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
You've found a source, which is good. The problem is, it doesn't support your statement. The source says "According to Roger E. Hedlund, Indian Christians of indigenous origins include members of tribal communities, converted Dalits or untouchables, as well as converts from much earlier indigenous Christian churches in India, such as the St. Thomas Christians in Kerala and Tamil Nadu." If they are "converts" then they are no longer STCs and it is STCs who are the focus of the article. We might be able to say that some STCs have converted to Pentecostalism but we can't say this, most of which is still unsourced anyway.
Please do not add this stuff again until the issues have been resolved. Your last reply is irrelevant: we're dealing with this article, not some other article. I'm going to seek a third opinion. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for seeking a third opinion . It was very necessary for resolution. Even though I don't agree to half of your claims, I'm not going to say much since the issue is resolved.~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 04:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Sitush and ScitDei, you're both edit warring; instead of handing out blocks, I have decided to fully protect the page for two days. Please solve your dispute through discussion (or using one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Salvio, I'm amazed that no-one else has jumped in yet because this article is fiddled with almost daily. Past discussions in relation to other aspects of it (especially about sourcing) have already demonstrated that there are huge problems with the thing & a lot of, ahem, missionary zeal. DR procedures such as WP:3O and WP:DRN would be ok if ScitDei's info was sourced ... but it isn't and they're not getting it. This is basic stuff and should not need escalating. - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: The 3O request asked specifically for an opinion on the use of this source to support this edit, so that's what I'm restricting myself to. Whilst the Burgess source can certainly be used to support the claim that "Another new movement called Pentecostalism attracted quite a few of the Syrian Christians, from the already existing denominations in the latter half of the 20th century", it emphatically cannot support the statement that "The pioneers of many Pentecostal and evangelical groups in Kerala, like the Brethren, IPC, Assemblies of God, Church of God, and many other similar churches were Saint Thomas Christians." Nowhere in the source does it say anything of the kind. If the latter claim is to be included, a different reliable source needs to be found which unambiguously states that the Pentecostal pioneers were originally St Thomas Christians. Yunshui  13:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yunshui. I also had a look at it (sorry for not catching the discussion till today), and there are a few other problems with the passage. First, neither the cited page nor the article in general support the claim that Pentecostalism has attracted Syrian Christians. As the article explains, traditional Pentecostalism is a specific denomination within Charismatic Christianity, and in fact it has had less impact than other denominations (94). Page 95 includes a quote about Catholic charismatics which says the movement's leader in India is a Syro-Malabar Catholic (meaning, a St. Thomas Christian), but it does not claim the movement is especially prominent among Syro-Malabar Catholics, let alone other Thomas Christians. Page 95 also talks about the neocharismatic movement, which is distinct from Pentecostalism, though they are related. It does say that St. Thomas Christians are among those attracted to this movement (not Pentecostalism) both within their established churches and in newer ones. As Yunshui says, it does not confirm the claim that "the pioneers of many Pentecostal and evangelical groups in Kerala" were St. Thomas Christians, and p. 96 gives a totally different list of prominent neocharismatic churches. I've tried to rephrase the article to more accurately reflect what the article says.--Cúchullain t/c 18:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a believer but thank God that some sense is prevailing. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Sitush. I would have added a bit about historical Pentecostalism and/or charismatic Catholicism among the St. Thomas Christians, but the source doesn't really say either has been particularly prominent in the community (as compared other Christians or converts to Christianity). It's a bit of a stretch, even, to get into the neocharismatic churches, as the text is clear the newer independent churches aren't made up exclusively (or even primarily) by folks from a St. Thomas Christian background. It seems like this source may have been chosen to support a conclusion that had already been drawn.--Cúchullain t/c 19:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Cuchullain & Yunshui for your opinions and edits and teaching atheistic fanatics how to edit instead of senseless deletions & censorship. ~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 04:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
WTF? - Sitush (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
ScitDei, your attitude is inappropriate and unhelpful. The other editors have been responding to you respectfully and you ought to treat them respectfully. There is a lot here from which you and other editors can learn. Knowledgeable editors have carefully explained the reasons for any deletions. Material is deleted from WP articles if they are:
  • unsourced -- that is, is accompanied by no sources;
  • sourced with unreliable references, and WP explains what is is considered a reliable source and what is not; sometimes it takes a while to understand the difference;
  • original research (see WP:OR);
  • written in a style that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (unencyclopedic); or, possibly,
  • duplicating what is already in the article.
That does not mean that the material cannot be added at some later point with appropriate references or in a modified form. In fact, that is what appears to have been done here. Your opinions are welcome. Just try to express them in a respectful way and you will be taken seriously. Also, be open-minded and open to learning something new. If there is disagreement, editors make an effort to persuade other editors by expressing their opinions respectfully and by providing additional information and sources, all in an effort to reach consensus. If you really feel strongly about an issue, start fresh with a different attitude and enjoy participating in the collaborative process. – CorinneSD (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry I got carried away. I thought @Sitush: was trying to undo only my edits. I publicly apologize to him for my behavior. ~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 04:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary and illogical edits claiming that Catholics are st. thomas christians[edit]

An issue here is that St. Thomas Christians by name and by faith believe themselves to be converted by St. Thomas, Apostle of Christ in India. Catholics in India are only established after the arrival of Portuguese. and the catholics are hellbent on change of history to their favour using all their resources. If Wikipedia doesn't stop this nonsene then there is no use to referering this page for any good use. If you are so desirous of spreading the word of god then do it to the masses and not in the history books, because if you change your history you are not worth any message you spread. (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC) George (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Members Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church are St. Thomas Christians. That's what they consider themselves, and most importantly for our purposes, it's what various reliable sources for the subject consider them. Personal interpretations of individual Wikipedia editors are original research, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia articles.--Cúchullain t/c 01:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Does those sources refer to Catholics converted or aligned to Roman Catholic church as indigenous St. Thomas Christians or they used the term to generally refer to christians. Further the Original Saint thomas christians was a name give by europeans to people who were the ones who were already christians before the evangelical movement of catholics. even if some St Thomas christians may have joined them, Catholics have converted more indigenous population to roman catholics and by and large very far away from the traditions of the real st. thomas christians. If you say history of 200-300 hundred years can whitewash the history of almost 2000 years your sources may be right. (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)George

Further i would like to add if what people believe is to taken as measure i believe they are not st. thomas christians, if you want proof from reliable sources, take any and read them they refer to christians who were not catholics before the arrival portugese. George117.233.14.192 (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What the people themselves believe matter, so long as it appears in reliable sources. What you as an individual believes doesn't matter at all. What really matters is what the reliable sources say, and various ones included here (Britannica, Benedict Vadakkekara, Robert Frykenberg, etc.) do include both the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and Syro-Malankara Catholic Church part of the Saint Thomas Christian community.
You appear to be seriously confused by what these churches are. Not all Catholics in India are Saint Thomas Christians; in fact most Indian Catholics are not. The Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara, however, are made up of people whose ancestors were Saint Thomas Christians who were brought into the Catholic church, and now have their own Eastern Catholic hierarchies and church structures. They are just as much Saint Thomas Christians as any other group.--Cúchullain t/c 16:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of argument would you address white Americans or for that matter any black American by the nationality of their ancestors. They have culturally and habitually so diverged from that of their ancestors from different nations that they have attained a divergent and unique and different distinct american identity. such is the case with malabar catholics and they had joined the catholic faith (even if some people doubt, they sincerely hold their allegiance to the pope) long time back, even converted many indigenous hindus and other religions elements ( through their early evangilical work which is still continuing) into their fold. their rank and file are mostly filled with those people who have very little to do with the real st. thomas christians. Just because someone has published something it doens't become 'an authentic source'. You have corrected me twice, may i ask you how much do you know about st. thomas christians. I am not alleging that you are biased nor do i want to believe the same (to much politics in religion nowadays). Taking time out to monitor this page in itself is very big. I am a jacobite and i live in Kerala, India, and don't really care what anyone says or for that matter even less for what are published on the internet, but to see a page which many see and many more may see in future i would like the page to reflect authentic records. and to see something based on evangilical publicity materials, i don't hold it on high values. rest assured i hope the matter is settled. I have by reason of my origins never ventured into seeking sources for my origin as they were as they are to me since the time i was born. hope somebody finds relevant sources. I have nothing more to say. George117.227.85.127 (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The ways other groups shape their identities are irrelevant to this article. And again, your personal views are also irrelevant to the article. All that matters is that we follow the reliable sources the topic. This isn't just my opinion, it's Wikipedia policy; please see verifiability and identifying reliable sources. As I showed, the sources consider the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Christians part of the Saint Thomas Christian community, so we follow what they say.--Cúchullain t/c 20:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
George, I don't understand your argument. Till 1054, there was no divisions in the church, there was just ONE,HOLY, CATHOLIC & APOSTOLIC church. Then how could the Christians in India be separate from them. The so called classifications like Orthodox, catholic, Jacobite etc., came to India when after a long time under the Archdeacon (as the leader of the Indian Christians was called, who were not in contact with the other churches), people tried to contact the larger church in the west/middle east. and its a long story you could read here in wiki itself. In fact the Syro-Malabar catholic church came just so that Christians could still be catholic and not under those Portuguese. Have you not ever heard about coonan kurishu oath?~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 07:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Not quite. Historically the St. Thomas Christians were part of the Church of the East, which was separated from other Christian groups long before the schism of 1054.--Cúchullain t/c 14:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

the schism occurred around 400 AD and since then the churches have remained different, actually four different places 1 at rome,2 at constantinople, 3 alexandria, 4 at antiochia which has been the see of christians in india before the evangilical movement by catholics. ScitDei your sources are very unrealiable because there was only one church before the portugese arrived in India. people didn't have any denominations before the evangilical movement. they only went to one church that church definitely wasn't catholic. constantinople and alexandria later merged with rome but the see of antiochia has not till date. schism of 1054 had in no way altered the church in india atleast upto and until the catholic evangilical movemement in india. my church teaches there are two measning of catholisism one to meant one in christ and one that means in agreement with the pope of rome. so which catholic church are you referring to [1] (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)George

Article Intro and well-accepted Infobox layout[edit]

The introduction line and the well-accepted infobox have been in the article since the beginning. I have tried to reinstate them.

I request the Admins to check the following three accounts for sock-puppetry.

1. നസ്രാണി (talk)

2. Achayan (talk),

3. അച്ചായൻ (talk).

It seems that the same person edits the articles using different names. (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly it isn't inappropriate to ask for changes in a long-standing article before making them, but I am curious exactly what is being requested here. If you believe the accounts are the same person, the best thing to do would be to file a sock puppet investigation report at WP:SPI. I get the impression from what you are saying that the three individuals above have been engaging in edit warrings regarding those matters. Is that about right? If it is, could you provide some sort of clearer information, either in the form of specific diffs or times at which the potentially problematic behavior took place? John Carter (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and the suggestion. These 3 accounts are very much connected to a single article Varghese Payyappilly Palakkappilly. I am from Ernakulam in Kerala. Though the person Varghese Payyappilly Palakkappilly is not well-known even in his Ernakulam district in Kerala, the above 3 accounts are very much interested in that article and make similar edits. So I have checked other edits made by these 3 accounts and they are similar in nature. If necessary, I will request for a sock puppet investigation at [[WP:SPI]. (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

When did Nestorianism reach India?[edit]

Quote An organised Christian presence in India dates to the arrival of East Syrian settlers and missionaries from Persia, members of the Church of the East or Nestorian Church, in around the 3rd century. Unquote

How on earth can that be true when Nestorius didn't live until the 5th century? There are similar wild statements in other articles here about the history of Christianity In India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


reference from well reputed historians are provided but then also removed and false information and hoaxes are everywhere and these stories are project as history!.made up stories of some "family historians" are used as authentic history!. There has been an awful lot of well-sourced content removed over the last month or two, and a lot of poorly-sourced content added - notably, too much reliance on Unless people come up with decent explanations for the removals, I am going to add the material back. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The changes are unexplained and unsupported. I say go for it.--Cúchullain t/c 18:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Sitush, would you like to go ahead with this?--Cúchullain t/c 14:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
It is my plan. Unfortunately, I'm feeling a bit disillusioned with WP at the moment and have an ArbCom case hanging over me - I'm pretty sure that one of the arbs is going to try to drag me into it as a party. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)