Talk:Saint Thomas Christians
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saint Thomas Christians article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|
|The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Please familiarize yourself with the sanctions authorized for this topic area before making further edits.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 2 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
One rogue editor, ManofManyTrophies has been attempting do the following:
1. Add claims of a large number of Jews converting to christianity, and then adding false citations. 2. Remove content written on the basis of Prof Malekandathil's published research. Nasrani.net reproduced a chapter from his book. His claim is that the source is not reliable.
Prof Malekandathil is professor of history at JNU, I believe India's most recognized History department, and his book has been reviewed in international journals. His book can be accessed here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rN69iFj1PJoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=pius+malekandathil+&ots=zC_bWvYX01&sig=fC68k0GDnxQtWn0czgDFNhWH-F0#v=onepage&q=pius%20malekandathil&f=false
Other than engaging in a discussion, he has been vandalizing my talk page with dubious warnings. I would like to ask for a third party review. Cúchullain?
- Nasrani.net is a glorification site of Syrian Christians. Are you saying that a Syrian Christians historian writing about his own people is a 100% reliable source? I never added citations or false citations to the Jews converting to Christianity and if I did, feel free to remove it. You had also reverted minor parts of the edit such as me replacing Persians with Middle Eastern. Regarding the conversions, tt is pretty obvious though. Also, do you know what vandalizing means in Wikipedia context? ManofManyTrophies (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The authenticity of the entries on Wikipedia is very doubtful. Some scrupulous guys edit and and changes the entire history according to their likes and to gain popularity of their groups or families. St.thomas Indian community history is the most edited version on Wikipedia. Those who edit that page has no clues of the history of Indian st Thomas Christians. If they cannot find their family name on the page, they simply add to it . and try to make it authentic. Orthodox Christian history in India clearly states that Only SEVEN FAMILIES were initially converted to Christianity. When somebody doesn't find their family name in the list , he or she simply add their family name to it and deliberately omit the original families who are on the original list. THE ORIGINAL SEVEN FAMILIES ARE KALLI,KALLIANKAL,KALLARAKAL ,MANKI,MADATHALAN,,MATTAMUK AND MANAVASRI.I don't mind anybody add their family name to it, but don't try to draw the history according to their wishes. JayMaveli (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It just sounds absolutely ridiculous as every 2 seconds in reading that article, I see some sort of comparison between Brahmins and Syrian Christians or Nairs and Syrian Christians. The sentence 'on par with Brahmins' or 'at the same level as savarna hindus' is probably the most common sentence in that article. It sounds like those from the community wish they were Brahmins or Nairs. If you say that there isn't any caste promotional things in the article that try to lift the status of the community, I would be more than happy to provide evidence for that. 'Privileged Military Role'...this is complete baloney.ManofManyTrophies (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Had you checked the source for your particular complaint you would see it is adequately backed up. The source is L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer's Anthropology of Syrian Christians, which is available online. The required page is 55 and you can look it up here: https://archive.org/stream/AnthropologyOfTheSyrianChristians/Anthropology%20Of%20The%20Syrian%20Christians#page/n93
Will also like to add, it is funny that ManofManyTrophies is accusing me for defending 'caste promotion' in this article, given judging by recent 'contributions' to other articles, caste promotion seems to be his hobby.
Josslined (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Many syrian catholics good "kudikidappu avakasham", were forced to do oozhiyam service until the proclamation of Dewan reddy Rao on December 29 1815!!
All cooked up stories, most Nasranis along with ezhavas were involved in Liquor trade which is by far the biggest evidence to support their common origins, The nambudiri origin claims are all fads just to escape casteist opression, No syrian christian became the dewans or army commanders of any kingdom until the british uplifted them by giving education and estates as return for their loyal services-all to dismantle the "nair dominance" in travancore in particular22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC) It should also be noted that the ORIGINAL NAMBUDIRIS who came from Ahichatra evangelised many fisherman and localites into BRAHMANISM-(source-elamkulam kunjan pillai) So in reality most nambudiris Syrian Catholics and ezhavas have the same blood126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The most frequently edited pages of Wikipedia is St.Thomas Christians pages and it is protected too so that other vandals cannot edit this pages anymore. Only authorized WIKI VANDALS are allowed to edit this page. Some scrupulous editors edit these pages to gain popularity of their family name distorting the real facts.I don't mind adding their family name in to this pages, but my request is that DON'T OMIT the original few families that still in existence. The original SEVEN FAMILIES from MALANKARA (Kerala) that St.Thomas converted are KALLI,KALLARAKAL,KALLIANKAL,MANKI,MADATHALAN,MATTAMUKU and MANAVASRI. If anyone wants to add their family name they can do so BUT don't distort the real HISTORY. Remember history is history and there are records to prove it.ANYHOW WIKIPEDIA IS NOTORIOUS FOR FALSIFYING THE FACTS AND PEOPLE DONT RELIE ON WIKIFACTS. JayMaveli (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
They have not supported their edits or objections.
The substantive edits is the following: STC origin is clarified to be being believed to be *possibly* some time in the first few centuries A.D. There is no historical certainty.
The stylistic edits was to refer Indian Christianity. STC is clearly a form of Indian Christianity, one could even say it is the most Indian of Indian Christianities being the oldest and the most integrated forms..
- Edit summaries explain the reason for reverting the changes made by Josslined and 188.8.131.52. It is very evident that 184.108.40.206 is a sock puppet of Josslined.
- You cannot say that they all are Indain Christians when many of them are American, German, British, Australian, etc. citizens.
- These Christians used only Syriac till a few centuries back. Syriac is not an indigenous Indian language. The article itself talks about migration from West Asia and other parts of the world. So all of these Christians are not indigenous people.
- According to Citation 4 given in the first paragraph, ".... Thomas landed in Muziris .... in AD 52 ...." Then, why do you change it to around AD 52? You cannot do that. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
To talk about sock puppetry you've used I believe 3 different IP address to revert the article 5 times. I have reported you for edit warring.
As for A.D.52 some traditional sources say A.D. 52. other say 50- the date is clearly not a fact. My main source is Frykenberg. But you are correct the source currently cited is inadequate and will need changing. There is not 'one standard tradition' but many.
STC is Indian Christianity that is indigenous (dictionary definition : "originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native") to India, even if some have taken citizenship elsewhere or have migrated. It's defining characteristic is that it is a form of Christianity that formed India before European contact. Josslined (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Reasons for edits:
Many of the edits I made today were purely stylistic. Rearranging awkward sentences. Other than that here are the edits I made and the reasons:
1. First paragraph: I changed 'commonly called' to 'referred to'. Reason: the Saint Thomas Christians is no more an official appellation than Syrian Christians or Nasrani. Indeed officially the community is called Syrian Christians, and historically Nasrani. Saint Thomas Christians is more a recent coinage that probably took place during European missionary work and is not used much in official or even scholarly discourse. I wanted to give emphasize that Syrian Christian or Nasrani are not nick-names or colloquialism. I understand in an international setting Syrian Christian can be confusing and so can Nasrani. But in actuality and in official record those are the names used historically.
2. First Paragraph: I clarified that while the community is no doubt old, no one really knows exactly when it began, even if legends (the sources we have don't date more than 4/5 hundred years max) claim the 1st century A.D or even more and very dubiously specify exactly the year as A.D. 52.
3. I added Frykenberg as the source for the first paragraph- he is the most comprehensive source on the topic.
3. First portion of Early History and Tradition. Following edits made:
a. I clarified many sources don't list the names of the gramams that are purportedly converted but do mention the tradition of Brahmin conversions. The sources for the list is Frykenberg and Thoma.
b. I added one sentence to clarify why this legend has some significance- it was the basis or the rationality for a class system in place in the community for hundreds of years. This is clear from Frykenberg.
Repeated removal of inline citation
Josslined removed an established inline citation, which is accessible online, for the 4th time. The inline citation, The Jews of India: A Story of Three Communities by Orpa Slapak, was removed because it contradicts Josslined's main claim. That citation talks about Hebrew signatures found on a 9th century Christian inscription, that is still available in Kerala for verification. No indigenous person in ancient Kerala would have signed in Hebrew in the 9th century. It is a physical evidence, not any speculation.
In the 2nd century, Pantaenus from Alexandria visited a Christian community in India using the Gospel of Mathew in Hebrew language. We have evidence of travel between Egypt and ancient Kerala (See Silk Road trade routes) in the 2nd century. No indigenous people would have used that Gospel at that time. The 2nd century South Indian epic Manimekkalai talks about a non-Indian Jewish Christian community in ancient Kerala.
The lead section should be inclusive and neutral. So I have reverted some of the edits and restored the citation removed by Josslined. I welcome other Users who have experience in editing this article to decide on the correctness of the recent changes proposed by Josslined and whether they are really needed or not. Anyway, we should not remove the citations verifiable online.
The Caste System that existed in the northern part of India did not exist as such in Kerala in the early centuries. Some obviously unreliable wild guesswork, which was not there in the article before 2015, like different castes, number of people converted, etc. can be removed. Jossyys (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh is that the citation you wished to keep. I removed it thinking it didn't add very much- we all know the Thomsian tradition is mentioned in many academic sources, and b) I thought the link was broken.
- We know there were Jews in kerala before 1000 A.D. We know hebrew was used in the community and we know persian merchants may have integrated with the community. We also know the community's tradition is that the initial converts were local Hindu people, supplemented later by migrants. Saint Thomas Christianity is an Indian version of Christianity. It is a community that had churches that looked like temples and that had a specific function and position in the Hindu caste system. A 1000 years later this possible mixture of migrants and local people can be called indigenous Indian Christians, and the community can be called to be Indian. No indigenous Indian community is is ethnically pure. Further all people in the subcontinent were migrants at one time. Indeed the archaeological evidence you cite is one of the earliest recorded artifacts in Kerala.
- "Some obvious unreliable wild guesswork, which was not there in the article before 2015, like different castes, number of people converted, etc. can be removed" I think you referring the Songs of Thomas. Songs of Thomas is one of the oldest record of the community tradition. It is not meant to be factual but a legendary account of the communities traditions.
- Further I have trouble claiming All saint thomas christians believe in the Thomsian legend. Further, it should be clarified the exact origins of the communit is not clear.
- The other point of the name. Calling Syrian Christain and Nasrani as the popular version is again wrong. Syrian Christian and Nasrani are the older more official names for the community. Saint Thomas Christians is actually the less official name, and has Anglican missionary connotations I will make edits accordingly (busy right now). Josslined (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- They were originally called Nasrani. The term Syrian Christian has been used in Kerala since the Dutch period, especially to differentiate between the Nasrani people and the Latin Christians.
- The structure of any building constructed in any region conforms to the local geography and climate and the construction work is done mostly by the local people. The ancient Nasrani churches in Kerala are a blend of Kerala architecture and Middle East churches.
- Now, the lead section is inclusive as it says that they are from Kerala, India; they trace their origins to the evangelistic activity of Saint Thomas in the 1st century. If we say, they are indigenous, we unnecessarily assert something which is not fully true. Look at the history of ancient Kerala, even the Brahmins in Kerala are not originally native to the region.
- Some people are very clear about their origins and some are not. The article takes care of the issue regarding their origins under the section "Early history and tradition." We need not clutter the lead section with more details that are included in the following sections.
- I have noticed that you give much importance to the term "Hindu." In fact, the word "Hindu" is NOT originally an Indian word. The word "Hindu" is neither a Sanskrit word, nor is this word found in any of the native dialects and languages of India. It is originally a Persian word (derogatory one) used by the Muslims who conquered and ruled the North and Central parts of India to humiliate the inhabitants there. People in India are slowly coming to realize this fact. Since Kerala was never part of any of those North Indian empires, the word "Hindu" was not used in Kerala until very recently. Jossyys (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Marthoma people list
Please don't include it. The Mar Thoma people is a subset of STC who follow anglican faith. It would be confusing to merge a subset with the set, as if all STC as Mar Thoma, which is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josslined (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Travancore state manual https://books.google.co.in/books?id=AVd1AQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover