Talk:Saint Thomas Christians/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Attempt to vandalize Kerala Christian related content by Vilmeenkodi

From the contributions from the user Vilmeenkodi in many pages related to Syrian Christians of kerala and general topics, it can be seen that he has a personal agenda against Kerala Christians and is communal in nature.

He wants to prove that Kerala christians did not exist, or are a portugese creation, etc. Without knowing the facts and history, just based on his conspiracy theories, he goes on vandalizing pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sijucm (talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Saint Kuriakose.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Saint Kuriakose.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

NB Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church

Just to bring into above merger discussion frame of reference. NOT proposing merger. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Knanaya edits

Why did you remove information from the article while discussion is going on? That's not at all fair.Thom100 (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

We removed incorrect material that had nothing to do with the above discussion. The material appears to misrepresent Menachery, who elsewhere has stated that "St. Thomas Christian" and "Nasrani" are equivalent. No other source I can find claims that "Knanaya" and "St. Thomas Christians" are two branches of "Nasranis". I already listed various sources that say Knanaya are a subgroup of Saint Thomas Christians/Nasranis. Here they are again:[1][2][3][4]--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Thom100 I understand your concern. But please let me tell you the passage that is there right now is the result of heavy vandalism that went on in 2009 or little earlier. I became too tired to revert it and it stayed on. What you see right now is pure misrepresentation with the fake tree classification diagram of nasrani = st thomas christians and Knanaya. for your benefit I am posting the original passage as it was before it was mutilated in the incessant revert wars by so called great editors who put in their own passages in existing references. So here is the original passage that was there in the early part of 2008. I hope this passage could now be restored after all these years of vandalism.

The Nasranis are an ethnic people, and a single community. As a community with common cultural heritage and cultural tradition, they refer to themselves as Nasranis. However, as a religious group, they refer to themselves as Mar Thoma Khristianis or in English as Saint Thomas Christians, based on their religious tradition of Syriac Christianity.

Thank you. I hope this resolves the problem. Also I am aware that today the most widely used term for the group is either Syrian Christian or Saint Thomas Christian. However it would be most appropriate to have a separate page with the traditional appellation of Nasrani Mappila for the socio cultural and ethnic aspect of the community. Anyway the Knanaya people are a part of the religious tradition referred to as Saint Thomas Christian. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Robin klein, Thank you.

When the Europeans were in Kerala, they changed the name of many places in Kerala so that they could pronounce it easily. In the same way, they called all Nasranis in Kerala, Saint Thomas Christians. They did not bother about the term Nasrani or the groups within Nasranis.

What I want to mention here is that all Saint Thomas Christians in Kerala are Nasranis, but all Nasranis in Kerala do not follow the same Tradition and Rituals.

The Knanaya Nasranis, although they are part of the Syriac Christian community, and thereby part of the Nasrani community in Kerala, strictly speaking, the origin of their tradition is different from the origin of the Kerala Saint Thomas Christian Tradition and they follow some different rituals. They still try to keep a distinct identity within the Syriac Christian community in Kerala. In that case, the very basic information which is "based on ethnicity" that is correct, should not be removed from the article Saint Thomas Christians.

Now, if the article Syrian Malabar Nasrani is to be merged with the article Saint Thomas Christians, the information on different ethnic groups within the Nasranis, the tradition and rituals of Knanaya Nasranis etc will also have to be conveyed properly in this article. How all these information can be shown in one article? So my opinion is that it would be better to have two articles and these two articles would complement each other as is the case now. That's why I oppose this idea of Merger. ThanksThom100 (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Thom100, Yes I understand what you are saying and I agree with you that this merger should not happen. But the text mutilated by vandalism years ago has to be restored and misrepresentation of references has to be rectified. Once again let me say I also oppose the merger. thanks Robin klein (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Robin klein, I wanted to have a consensus on this paragraph, but the user Ashleypt removed this paragraph again. He doesn't know that this information is there on many other articles, and on different sites and in many books. So it doesn't make any difference, if this information is hidden in this article, the effect would be this article would lack this vital info based on origin and ethnicity. Many users are ignorant of this info and this ignorance is the main reason behind this idea of Merger.

I have a suggestion to improve this paragraph by combining both the information, that is information based on origin and ethnicity (distinction) which is already there and information based on religious tradition of Syriac Christianity (co-operation) which you have pointed out.

For the time being, at least till the discussion on Merger is over, it's not fair to make any changes in the article. So I am going to add back the portion which was removed by the user Ashleypt in the middle of the discussion. Thanks.Thom100 (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Thom100, Your account history suggests, you are a new comer in Wikipedia. First of all, you please create a User Page. Regarding your contention mentioned above, it's not at all unfair to remove any content with fake citation even while the discussion is going on. Here in the discussion, you are the only person suggesting to keep that fake equation. --Ashleypt (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ashleypt,

It's really unfortunate and frustrating. You removed the correct information again.

Please read the following.

During the time of King Shapur II (310–379) of Persia, a group of 400 immigrants (72 families) from Persia arrived in Malabar under the leadership of merchant Knai Thomman. They were engaged in trade and settled down in Kodungallur.Another immigration from Persia occurred around 825 under the leadership of Persian merchant Marwan Sabriso, with two Bishops, Mar Sapro and Mar Prodh. Together they were known as Knanaya (Kanahi people. They continued to remain an endogamous group within the Nasrani community. They cooperated with the Malankara Church, attended worship services together but remained a separate identity.

"By the 10th century, in Malabar there were two Nasrani groups, the Saint Thomas Christians and the Knanaya community".

Reference: Mathew N.M. (History of the Marthoma Church. (Malayalam), Volume 1. Page 92-94 and souvenirs published by Knanaya parishes in Kerala.

Hope you realise your mistake and undo your own revision.Thom100 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop posting the same material under every comment. It makes the conversation nearly impossible to sort out. I responded to this comment above.Cúchullain ^t/c 12:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Knanaya/Nasrani passage

I think there is clear consensus to restore the previous version of the passage on the Nasrania and Knanaya. The dubious material about the Knanaya was added on November 8, 2010 here. As has been pointed out by various editors above, the material is demonstrably wrong and misuses the sources. Thom100 is literally the only user who objects to restoring it, and has resorted to edit warring and name calling to keep it in. If there are no objections from anyone besides Thom100, I'll be restoring the more correct (but still not perfect) version, which is:

“ The Nasranis are an ethnic people, and a single community. As a community with common cultural heritage and cultural tradition, they refer to themselves as Nasranis. However, as a religious group, they refer to themselves as Mar Thoma Khristianis or in English as Saint Thomas Christians, based on their religious tradition of Syriac Christianity. ”

--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The correct information based on origin was added on 08 November 2010 and has been there since. This issue has started now only after the discussion on Merger of the article Syrian Malabar Nasrani with the article Saint Thomas Christians began just 5 days back. Since this information is there on many other articles on Wikipedia itself, all of a sudden this existing passage in this article alone cannot be removed. There are many users on Wikipedia. Two users joining together and trying to vandalise the article cannot be accepted. Two or Three users are not enough for a consensus on an information which is there on many articles on Wikipedia.Thom100 (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, literally everyone else who has weighed in besides you sees the problem with this passage. It misuses the source and makes demonstrably false claims. Consensus is against you. Sorry.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Since this information is there on many other articles on Wikipedia, it cannot be removed from this article alone on your own. It won't be accepted. It's not a false claim. Since the information is correct, it will be added back.Thom100 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you alone don't dictate what goes in articles (and you are literally alone in this discussion). At least three other editors besides myself have expressed concern with your material over the last five days, yet you refuse to listen. And edit warring and threatening to edit war is not acceptable behavior. I highly recommend you stop doing it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Only two users argue with me. You added the dubious tag yesterday only and trying to remove the passage today. Since this information is acceptable to users in many other articles on Wikipedia, the dubious tag added by you in this article alone doesn't make sense and therefore will be removed.Thom100 (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Four different editors have tried to explain the problems to you, you just refuse to listen.[5][6][7][8] Threatening to edit war is not appropriate or productive.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• I repeat, only two users argue with me. Same rules apply to all users.Thom100 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's four, and literally everyone else to have weighed in besides you. I've restored the passage. Please don't resort to edit warring.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thom100 has already got 2 warnings for vandalism. I doubt this account as a socket puppet. --Ashleypt (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

From the behaviour of two editors, Cuchullain and Ashleypt, its clear that they are trying to implement their own "pre-planned agenda" here which is not acceptable as per Wikipedia norms. Moreover, Cuchullain's edits on different articles reveal that this user is very biased against the Syriac Churches in Kerala especially the Malankara Churches.Thom100 (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

More personal comments from a tendentious editor. I'm not rising to it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• to Cúchullain, Ashleypt, re Thom100 I cannot at this point in the editing pattern see anything specific for a sockpuppet enquiry, but if the User pulls any more stunts like deleting tags then admin involvement and (at least) a topic ban would be appropriate. Back to the actual subject. We have one oppose who is behaving correctly and has made a different argument from Thom100.
• to Robin Klein, so your points don't get submerged in the noise of others, can you please restate: do we have any WP:RS justifying the fork between these 2 articles yet? I cannot see so far in the discussion above any dated WP:RS to prevent a merge. But willing to look at anything you present. Thanks! In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Dear In ictu oculi, thanks for considering my views. Well, I should state that there is no source that uses the term Syrian Malabar Nasrani and there is no difference between what is stated as Syrian Malabar Nasranis and Saint Thomas Christians. The subject of both the terms is one and the same that is: The "Nasrani Mappila" to be precise regardless of the extremely low usage of the term.

To put it simply, my point is: There need to be two different pages, one dealing with the said people as an ethnic group (to be precise “Nasrani Mappila” or “Malabar Nasranis”). By popular usage the term could be "Saint Thomas Christians" and another page dealing with the religious tradition of the said group ("Saint Thomas Christian Tradition"). Just as there are two different main pages dealing with Christianity and christians. One dealing with Christianity (the christian religious tradition) and the other dealing with Christian (people following or adhering to the religious tradition). In traditional usage this is often said in terms of Nasrani (dealing with the Malabar Nasrani ethnic people as a whole) and Mar Thoma Khristiani Sabha (dealing with the Saint Thomas christian religious tradition).

Neither the term Syrian Malabar Nasrani nor Saint Thomas Christian is classically precise. 'Syrian Malabar Nasrani' is used only in wikipedia while 'Saint Thomas Christian' is the most widely used term popularized in recent decades. Historically though the precise term is indeed Nasrani Mappila or just Malabar Nasrani.

If the policy of the wikipedia was to use the most precise term rather than the most commonly used term for a subject then I guess the most appropriate term for the subject in question would be Nasrani Mappila.

To sum my point. There needs to be two pages:

a.) Saint Thomas Christians (by Popular usage) or Malabar Nasrani (by precise usage) - dealing with the said people as an ethnic group (present life, semitic origin, current occupations, historical role in trade, jewish heritage, Naming tradition, pesaha practices, portuguese inquisition, persecution of Nasranis and Cochin Jews by Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan, present day declining Syrian Nasrani population, modern diaspora, etc (much to be done....)

b.) Saint Thomas Christian Tradition or Mar Thoma Khristiani Sabha (by precise usage) - dealing with the religious practices. The various various denominations, the similarities and probable differences between the denominations, the jurisdictions of various churches, the causes of the split, the timeline of the religious practices and split etc....

By Common usage the page dealing with Saint Thomas Christian Tradition could be forked out from the page Saint Thomas Christians. By precise usage the page Saint Thomas Christian Tradition could be forked out from the page Malabar Nasrani

Thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robin, okay thanks for that explanation and refs - that is along the lines of what I had understood from your previous Talk posts but because of background noise it wasn't visible with such clarity. You evidently have a point, WP:RS sources do distinguish religious and ethnic identity for other groups - Huguenots once exiled from France became, in Ireland, Netherlands etc, an ethnic as well as religious identity. This might particularly be the case in Kerala where caste/religion have some linkage. The problem is going to be marshalling reliable WP:RS for the distinction, and then the question of whether ethnic StTC and practising StTC deserve separate articles or a separate paragraph - given the high overlap. What I think might be a way of fixing this (and the reason I say "might" is because I'm not sure what there is in English rather than Malayalam in the way of RS) could be to tackle Saint Thomas Christians (ethnic group) and Saint Thomas churches (India) or something - taking care to select titles that reflect WP:EN, we cannot use Malayalam terms as titles in en.wikipedia where English terms exist. What you say is certainly a more sensible division than the current division (duplication) of the two pages. What I can see as potential problems (which other editors have alluded to above) is (a) avoiding mish-mash of the semi-legendary origins of the group with modern sources, though oral history and legend/tradition is fine when sourced, (b) how do GOI/GOK policies treat St Thomas Christians - and do the GOI/GOK distinguish practising, (c) how tensions between StTC ethnic identity and religious membership work out - I remember seeing an editorial in a paper about the cultural dislocation felt by StTC converts to Pentacostalism for example, were they still StTC? That's the sort of thing where WP:RS might be difficult to find. Overall I'm much more persuaded by your argument than the editor Thom100, but on the other hand based purely on what's in the two jumbled articles now the 2 editors proposing a merge have a good case based on what's there now. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nasrani Mappila was not a term of universal use for the Christians of St. Thomas in early Malabar. Mappila was not an ethnic term, but an honorary title given to some Christians by the local Kings, in early Malabar. Moreover, in some parts of Kerala, Christians of Saint Thomas consider it as derogatory to be called Mappila, as it was previously used to name Semitic immigrants and in that period "Southist Christians were called "Mappilas" after Thomas of Cana. My point is, the term "Nasrani Mappila" can't be considered as an ethnic name for majority of Saint Thomas Christians. "Malabar Nasrani" is also an artificial name, and we could see little genuine results if we search in "Google Scholar". Of course, 'Marthomma Nasranis' ("Marthomma Nasranikal" in Malayalam) is a popular name used for Christians of Saint Thomas(A period of decline of the Mar Thoma Christians, 1712-1752 Issue 171 of Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, India, Author-Joseph Perumthottam) but never attained the status of universal ethnic name for StTC. Before the arrival of Portuguese, StTC were simply referred as Christians (Christianikal in Mal), because no other Christians were there in the Land of Kerala (But still grouped into Northists and Southists). Later, the christians in Kerala were classified as Syrian Christians and Latin Christians based on ethnicity (U know the context). Concluding, Saint Thomas Christians would be the correct ethnic name for these people, and they can't be considered as a single religious group. Could cite more WP:RS if needed. --AshLey ^Msg 09:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• • The point is it doesn't matter what the people are called or were called. Whatever they are or were called. There needs to be two different pages. One dealing with the people, life and other social aspects and another dealing with the religious denominations. I am happy at least In ictu oculi got my point. thanks Robin klein (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi has it right: based on what's in these two articles now, and what they are titled now, they describe the same exact subject, and make only tentative efforts to suggest they're different. I fail to see the need for a separate article on religion, but if we decide we need one, that would really be an entirely new article. As it stands currently, these articles cover the same topic and need to be merged into one decent article, rather than two poor ones.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Dear Cúchullain and In ictu oculi I agree with both of you. Thank you for your understanding. There is no need for two articles if both of them have the same content as of now. However, wikipedia articles usually tend to grow or expand over time. So it is proper to have two different pages in order to help develop the pages in the necessary directions later on. For this to happen now We could put all details dealing with religious denominations in one page and all the details dealing with social aspects in another article whatever they are called. This needs to be done now so that later on there would not be problem when whosoever may need to expand the articles in the necessary direction. Besides talking about redundancy. The page that needs to be merged is the page: History of the Saint Thomas Christians. It is almost an exact copy of the page Saint Thomas Christians as it exists now. thanks Robin klein (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robin

I think what's needed now to separate (a) church (b) ethnic group is a clear WP:RS source that shows (a) St Thomas church (b) St Thomas ethnic group being distinguished. It makes sense that there should be a source out there, and I suspect GOI census material or SC regulations may be the place to look?. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Dear In ictu oculi, the evidence for the distinct conception of the church as compared to the ethnic community is ever present. It is described by Hermann Gundert the first writer/ compiler of the Malayalam dictionary (and also the grandfather of the Nobel Prize winning author Hermann Hesse). Herman Gundert described the term Mappila as a term for the entire kerala community of West Asian descent. Further, there are three sections that comprise of the Mappila community of West Asian Descent in kerala. These sections include 1.) the first section of Mappila people called Juda Mappila (Jewish Community following Halakhic Judaism); 2.) the second section of Mappila people called the Nasrani Mappila (christian Jewish community - people of Jewish descent following Saint Thomas Christianity) and 3.) the third section of Mappila of west Asian descent called Jonakan Muslim Mappila (for people of West Asian Arab descent who became Muslims, this section also includes Nasranis and Jews forcefully converted to Islam by Hyder Ali in the late 1790s). The term for the Christian Jewish community as an ethnic group is Nasrani Mappila at least according to credible source like that of Hermann Gundert the person who wrote the first malayalam dictionary.

Robin klein (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The term for the unique tradition of Hebrew Syriac christian tradition that the Nasrani Mappila community follows is Mar Thoma Nasrani which is loosely translated in to English as Saint Thomas Christian Tradition. Where Mar Thoma refers to Saint Thomas the apostle and Nasrani is the hebrew syriac term for Jewish christian, hence the commonly used loose translation in to English as Saint Thomas Christian tradition.

Therefore for Wikipedia the appropriate term for the people as an ethnic group is Mar Thoma Nasrani and the appropriate term for the christian tradition of the people is Saint Thomas Christian Tradition. thanks Robin klein (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact if things have to be precise. The page Mappila should fork into 3 pages. 1.) Cochin Jews or Juda Mappila; 2.) Mar Thoma Nasrani or Nasrani Mappila; and 3.) Jonakan Muslim Mappila or just Muslim Mappila. While the page Cochin Jews could have the sub page of paradesi jews; and the page Mar Thoma Nasrani could have the sub page Saint Thomas Christian tradition. The point is that the Mosaic religions did not ethnically split in kerala as it did in the Mediterranean world. At least not till the advent of globalization. thanks Robin klein (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing the issue. Neither this article nor the one title "Malabar Syrian Nasrani" discuss Jewish or Muslim Indians; they both discuss the people known as St. Thomas Christians/Nasranis. IF there were two articles the correct titles would be "St. Thomas Christians" and "St. Thomas Christian churches" or some such, but there's no actual need for two articles at this point. I recommend we just go ahead with the merge, which has clear consensus, and if we need to split off another article we can.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Mr.Cuchullain is correct. There is no reason to delay the merging. Robin Klein's ideas are to be considered for advanced research, but at present we do not have much supporting WP:RSs to consider Saint Thomas Christians as Jewish Christians. At the most, the article could mention the possibilities of Semitic Admixture with native people. When Robin states "Nasrani is the hebrew syriac term for Jewish Christian", I think, he is deliberately misinterpreting the WP:RS. Actually, Nazrani was a term used by Jews to describe Followers of Christ. --AshLey ^Msg 11:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Mr Ashley_thomas80 wrote, "Robin Klein's ideas are to be considered for advanced research",

when will the time for advanced research come? If there is a time then this is it. Robin klein (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr Ashley_thomas80 wrote, "When Robin states "Nasrani is the hebrew syriac term for Jewish Christian", I think, he is deliberately misinterpreting the WP:RS. Actually, Nazrani was a term used by Jews to describe Followers of Christ. "

Thank you for the accusation that I am deliberately misinterpreting. I would like to remind that the early christians were Jewish. It is not a deliberate misinterpretation that Nasrani is a term for early Jewish Christians. The early Christians were indeed Jewish. Now I understand the reason for desperately asking for the merger. It is to remove all references to Jewish origins and to propagate the myth of high caste brahmin tradition. Now I understand the purpose of this merger. Good Luck with your agenda. But, please do not accuse me of misinterpreting something deliberately. Robin klein (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We need to return to civility here and leave personal comments out. No one is "deliberately misinterpreting" anything, and no one is trying to "propagate a myth". I can't speak for everyone, but my desire to merge the articles is simply to remove the falsehood that "Saint Thomas Christians" and "Syrian Malabar Nasrani" are separate groups and to follow what the sources say to create a decent encyclopedia article. --Cúchullain ^t/c 20:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Cúchullain, Thanks for your understanding. Yes, there is no deliberate misinterpreting here. I know and completely acknowledge that Saint Thomas Christians and Syrian Malabar Nasrani are not two different groups but one and the same people. I don't mind a merger of the three pages (don't forget the extremely redundant page History of the Saint Thomas Christians). The only reason I would like two different pages for the same people is to have one page to describe the ethnic aspects of the people and another page to deal with the plethora of churches and subdivisions among the community. The pages could be called Saint Thomas Christians and Saint Thomas Christian Churches just as you proposed if needed. thanks Robin klein (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me if my comments hurt your feelings. But it would be wrong to stress on "Hypothesis of Jewish Origin" against the actual content in WP:RSs. Some sources mention the genetic miscegenation among natives and Jewish people in the earliest Christian community in Kerala. Also it is true that the Jewish colonies in Malabar had paved the way for disciples of Christ to visit this land. It would be highly extrapolating to state that Saint Thomas Christians are predominantly Jewish in Ethnicity. Last month, I even raised this content issue in Dispute Resolution Board, and the mediator also commented on the undue weight given to Jewish things in the article. Some research is going on to establish the lineage of this community, but we have to wait until they are published in some WP:RSs. When I support the proposal to merge, I look forward to clean up the article under the guidance of some administrators. I would readily accept the views of Mr.Robin, once they are published in a reasonable number of WP:RSs.

In Apostolic Age itself, church started admitting Gentiles. Increasing number of Gentiles caused to cease the imposition of Circumcision in early church. That was the case in Israel. In Malabar, while Jewish Christians involved in the overseas trade, the indigenous Christians engaged in spice-production and other agricultural activities in the hinterland part of Kerala. Please refer Maritime India: Trade, Religion and Polity in the Indian Ocean by Dr.Pius Malekandathil, published by Primus Books, New Delhi, 2010. The proportion of Jewish factor is just a matter of logic. --AshLey ^Msg 14:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to merge Syrian Malabar Nasrani into St. Thomas Christians. Related articles and templates to be tidied up as appropriate, and sub-article(s) created as needed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

This is a long time coming, but Syrian Malabar Nasrani needs to be merged into St. Thomas Christians. As has been pointed out numerous times, both articles describe the same people. First, "Syrian Malabar Nasrani" is a made-up construct that barely exists outside of Wikipedia and its forks (Virtually all of these books are all either reprints of Wikipedia articles, or are referencing Wikipedia). The actual term used in India is simply "Nasrani" (or something related such as the honorific "Nasrani Mappila"). "Nasrani" is a term meaning "Christian"; in an Indian context, it specifically means the people better known in English as the St. Thomas Christians.
Any number of sources demonstrate that "Nasrani" and "St. Thomas Christian" are synonymous.[9][10][11][12][13] There is some attempt here to claim "Nasrani" is the "ethnic" name and "St. Thomas Christian" is the "religious" name, but this does not mesh with usage of the terms outside of Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support as nominator.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. You have started this topic. The information on Knanaya Nasranis is relevant in this discussion. The nominator should not remove information from the article while discussion is going on.Thom100 (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read the following.

During the time of King Shapur II (310–379) of Persia, a group of 400 immigrants (72 families) from Persia arrived in Malabar under the leadership of merchant Knai Thomman. They were engaged in trade and settled down in Kodungallur.Another immigration from Persia occurred around 825 under the leadership of Persian merchant Marwan Sabriso, with two Bishops, Mar Sapro and Mar Prodh. Together they were known as Knanaya (Kanahi people. They continued to remain an endogamous group within the Nasrani community. They cooperated with the Malankara Church, attended worship services together but remained a separate identity.

"By the 10th century, in Malabar there were two Nasrani groups, the Saint Thomas Christians and the Knanaya community".

Reference: Mathew N.M. (History of the Marthoma Church. (Malayalam), Volume 1. Page 92-94 and souvenirs published by Knanaya parishes in Kerala.Thom100 (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that Malayam source (and your "souvenirs") are directly contradicted by the various English provided in various places below that demonstrate that the Knanaya are one group of St. Thomas Christians/Nasranis. Additionally, your posting all over the place is making this conversation unreadable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I would explain again. All Saint Thomas Christians in Kerala are Nasranis but all Nasranis in Kerala do not follow the same tradition. One group of Nasranis follows the 1st century Kerala Saint Thomas Christian Tradition while another group (Knanaya Nasranis) follows another tradition. That's why this distinction based on origin and ethnicity exists. I have pointed out this distinction in order to show that this idea of Merger is not right.Thom100 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

They might claim that, but that doesn't make it true. Once again, (1). "Saint Thomas Christians" and "Nasranis" are synonymous. (2). The Knanaya are a group of St. Thomas Christians/Nasranis.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• I like to add that this distinction on the basis of origin is enough to prove St.Thomas' visit to Kerala in the 1st century. Those who have doubts about his presence in Kerala, are not aware enough of this distinction. So this very important information cannot be overlooked, it must be shown properly in this article. This article is on a section of people in Kerala, India, and the Official Language of Kerala is Malayalam, so information in Malayalam sources can be taken as the Original one.Thom100 (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What? Of course this doesn't "prove" that Thomas visited India in the 1st century. And no, your Malayam-language souvenir books are not superior to the reliable sources, some of them published by university presses, that demonstrate that "St. Thomas Christians" and "Nasranis" are synonyms and that the Knanaya are a group of St. Thomas Christians/Nasranis.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• There is no consensus. It's better to stop this discussion and drop the Merger proposal.Thom100 (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Simply because you don't agree with the consensus doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It looks pretty clear actually.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The idea of two articles is to have a page dealing with the community as a single ethnic group Syrian Malabar Nasrani and another to deal with their myriad religious variations within the broader frame of Saint Thomas Christians. This is done for a lot of different people who have a single ethnic identity but variation in religious and historical practices. E.g. Parsi dealing with the Parsi people as a single identity and Zoroastrianism dealing with the long diverse history of the people with diversity across Iran, Asia Minor and India. This happens also with pages like German Culture and Germany, and Jews dealing with the Jewish people as a single ethnic group and Judaism dealing with the diverse and long and complex history of the Jewish religious practices across the Jewish Diaspora. The same thing is the case with Syrian Malabar Nasrani and Saint Thomas Christians. Moving this is an impractical idea. The contents are too huge and is not all the same in both the articles. In any case it is not possible to put all information on the same page. If at all one of the pages could be forked as an sub article of the other. Which is already the case. Besides the term Nasrani is the ethnic term for all Saint Thomas Christians. Even Geroge Menachery has a volume called as Nasranis and another set of volume titles Saint Thomas Christian Encyclopedia. The two terms are distinct though with lots of overlapping themes. I am not making the differentiation. Wikipedia is not a place for original research where I or anyone else can try and make any differentiation. I am refering to the works of George Menachery. He has published a volume called Nasranis and also has set of volumes called Saint Thomas Christian Encyclopedia. They both are distinct though as I said have overlapping themes. Besides if the article is going to be merged then one has to remember that probably hundreds of article link to syrian malabar nasrani. A lot of pages would loss link unless every link is restored. thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

All though I would say that a much better and appropriate thing to do would be to move Syrian Malabar Nasrani to Nasrani Mappila or Malabar Nasrani as a more distinct ethnic term than a term involving religious variations like saint Thomas Christians. thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm afraid you're wrong about George Menachery. The full title of his book on the "Nazranis" is The Nazranies: Church History Classics On India's Ancient Malabar Christians Of St. Thomas. The page for the book on his website, indianchristianity.com, contains multiple references indicating that "St. Thomas Christians" and "Nazranies" are one and the same.[14] And I already included a number of other links above demonstrating that the terms are synonyms. Again, the claim that "Nasranis" is an "ethnic" term and "St. Thomas Christians" is a "religious" term is simply not correct.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Again on second thoughts would it not be better and appropriate to merge both Saint Thomas Christians and Syrian Malabar Nasrani to a page like Nasrani Mapilla or Malabar Nasrani or just Nasrani as Nasrani is the traditional appellation for the said people. thanks Robin klein (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because "Saint Thomas Christians" (and related terms like "Thomas Christians" or "Christians of Saint Thomas" are much more common in English, and Wikipedia practice is to use common names. For example, "Nasrani"+India returns fewer relevant Google Books hits than "Thomas Christian"+India.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The sources listed clearly demonstrate that the two terms refer to the same group. In addition to this, a merge would go a long way toward solving the disputes on the page, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: The name Syrian Malabar Nasrani is vague, especially for a non-Malayalee. The word Syrian is misleading; the word Malabar is an anachronism and the word Nasrani is unfamiliar to many. Wikipedia articles are read by people all over the world. But the name Saint Thomas Christians (not St. Thomas Christians) is specific and more suitable for a worldwide publication. So, I support the merger. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose this Merger because the articles Saint Thomas Christians and Syrian Malabar Nasrani are complementary to each other. There is a slight distinction between these two terms, based on origin. Nasranis = (Saint Thomas Christians who trace their origin from the first century Christians baptized by St.Thomas in Kerala) + (Knanaya Christians who are descendants of Christians from West Asia to Kerala in the later centuries). Thom100 (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thom100, can you please clarify, is the word "Nasrani" in Malayali used for all Christians in Kerala?

The term "Nasrani" was used to mention all Christians in Kerala until the 16th century, thereafter, this term is used only for Syrian Christians in Kerala. So the term "Nasrani" is not used for Latin Catholic Christians and some new Christians in Kerala. Thom100 (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Saint Thomas Christian" isn't used for Latin Catholics or other Christians either. Today the terms are synonymous. We already have substantial evidence for this, can you produce any evidence that they aren't?--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Saint Thomas Christians" is not used for Latin Catholics or other Christians in Kerala, because they don't follow the 1st century Kerala Saint Thomas Christian Tradition.

This article on Saint Thomas Christians itself shows under the heading, "Classification of Nasranis based on Ethnicity" the following information.

     Nasranis (Malabar Syrian Christians) = (Saint Thomas Christians + Knanaya Christians)

So, evidence is here itself and it proves that, strictly speaking, these two terms are not exactly the same. I hope Wikipedia would correct those people who do not know this difference. Thom100 (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The image you're talking about was created by a Wikipedia editor and has no sources. You'd need some evidence from outside of Wikipedia that the terms are not synonymous. For the record, here are some sources indicating that the Knanaya are a group of Saint Thomas Christians/Nasranis.[15][16][17][18]

The equation is a fake one. There are no reliable sources approving the same. Knanaya community was not an independent group, but just a tiny sub group of Saint Thomas Christians. They don't have any independent liturgy or culture. If we keenly observe, some of the traditions are different among Knanaya, but just a few in number. Similarities largely overwhelms the differences, and for an external observer, both communities are same. I haven't ever met any Knanaya person who is conversant in Syriac, even among their priests.

Moreover, the comments on Portugese Observation is erroneous. They had made some observations Knanaya people but didn't considered them as a group outside Saint Thomas Christians. "The earliest reference is from a Portuguese report written by Penteado in 1518 .He narrates the origins of the Christians of St. Thomas both in Quilon and Cranganore to the King of Portugal. The first origins are from the Apostle Thomas. For the period after St. Thomas, as far as Cranganore is concerned, there came an Armenian merchant advanced in age......" Ref: [19] --Ashleypt (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ashleypt,

It's really unfortunate and frustrating. You removed the correct information again.

Please read the following.

During the time of King Shapur II (310–379) of Persia, a group of 400 immigrants (72 families) from Persia arrived in Malabar under the leadership of merchant Knai Thomman. They were engaged in trade and settled down in Kodungallur.Another immigration from Persia occurred around 825 under the leadership of Persian merchant Marwan Sabriso, with two Bishops, Mar Sapro and Mar Prodh. Together they were known as Knanaya (Kanahi people. They continued to remain an endogamous group within the Nasrani community. They cooperated with the Malankara Church, attended worship services together but remained a separate identity.

"By the 10th century, in Malabar there were two Nasrani groups, the Saint Thomas Christians and the Knanaya community".

Reference: Mathew N.M. (History of the Marthoma Church. (Malayalam), Volume 1. Page 92-94 and souvenirs published by Knanaya parishes in Kerala.

Hope you realise your mistake and undo your own revision.Thom100 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not verifiable. Please check Wikipedia policies while citing references. If you are interested in doing more research on the subject, kindly try to refer the books of University of Kerala, Menachery, Benedict Vadakkekara, Skariya Zackariya, The Catholic encyclopedia: an international work of reference on the constitution doctrine discipline and history of the Catholic church Volume 14, Volume 190 of Orientalia Christiana analecta etc (Available On-Line). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.72.195 (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Who is this Anonymous Unsigned User with IP 218.248.72.195 please ?Thom100 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it was me. But you can't insert those contentious texts and graph without reliable and verifiable sources. I would have to refer the case if you are continue doing this. Please correct your parochial view on this matter. For your better understanding, the term "St.Thomas Christians" was not a name used exclusively for the people who were Christianized by Thomas the Apostle, but it was an inclusive name given to all the Christians, whom were found as Christians in the Malabar by the various visiting Scholars. Furthermore there were other Knanaya communities who migrated from Cana during various persecutions and the Knanaya community in Malabar was identified specifically as "Knanaya St.Thomas Christians". Please refer the book "The Old Testament as authoritative Scripture in the early churches of the East By Vahan Hovhanessian". Many other historians specifies like "St. Thomas Christians including Knanaya community". Also, the term "Knanaya" was coined in 20th century only, and before they were called as "Thekkumbhagakkar". I'm not against covering the history of Knanaya community with due significance in the article of Saint Thomas Christians. If Knanaya community is an outsider one to Saint Thomas Christians, why you are trying to mention their case in this article. Here, we cann't divert from the established ways of prominent historians as we wish to keep the quality of the article in the upper echelons. Even if the suggestion put forward by you is some what reasonable, since "Thekkumbhagakkar" was a minority community, almost fully dependent on the parent community of Vadakkumbhagakkar; no historical records consider them as an outsider one wrt Saint Thomas Christians. Instead they classified Saint Thomas Christians as Thekkumbhagakker and Vadakkumbhagakkar. You could understand this wider aspect of historical classification despite what the nomenclature portrays, while considering the case of the word "Hindu" which is also attributed to all persons professing any Indian religion (i.e. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism or Sikhism).Hope you could follow the ways of historians and uphold the quality of this document. "Wikipedia is NOT a place to post primary research." --Ashleypt (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This information was added earlier by editors who know the history of Christianity in Kerala. This was not added by me. This information is there in many other articles, and on different sites and in many books. From your arguments, its very clear that you lack the basic knowledge on Christianity in Kerala, that cannot be compensated by reading some books. If you edit articles on Kerala Christians on Wikipedia with half knowledge, these articles will not convey the correct information. Thom100 (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This has already been refuted above. Several reliable sources demonstrating that the Knanaya are a group of St. Thomas Christians/Nasrani have been provided.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

English terms are wrongly used in many articles. An outsider will not be able to understand the correct meaning or the correct information.Thom100 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is the English Wikipedia, and we go with [[WP:COMMONNAME|common usage in English. And at any rate, terminology aside, the Knanaya are a group within the community known as the St. Thomas Christians/Nasrani.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I was not talking about articles on Wikipedia, but the sources you have mentioned, those sources may have used English terms wronly. I always want correct information on WikipediaThom100 (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Thom100, How adamant you are with your parochial views. You please go through the arguments above and introspect yourself. Nobody is born with knowledge but it's an acquired virtue through experience or education. Since I'm a native Syrian Christian and also a Catechism teacher,I believe, I could claim enough experience in this regard. And the books you contemptuously neglected above are adored as the best tools for education all around the world. I rigorously collected many rare books and tried hard to explore the history of Christianity in Kerala. But I'm sure, I failed to acquire a thousandth of available knowledge and shockingly, the unavailable section proved invaluable to me. For example, 1st three centuries and 12-14 centuries are called dark ages in the history of Christianity in Malabar. I'm really sorry to say that what you have attributed - HALF THE KNOWLEDGE - is impossible for me to achieve. If you continue posting ur arguments on the basis of some verifiable sources, I would be happy to comment on it, with my limited knowledge. --Ashleypt (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Assuming the issue of Malayalam-English Translation in this matter is just beating about the bush. Prof. George Menachery, the author of "The St. Thomas Christian Encyclopaedia of India" is a native Syrian Christian and he categorically states in his book as "The Nothist-Southist endogamous division among the Christians of St. Thomas is attributed to the arrival of Thomas of Cana in Malabar". The same book is the pivotal source for the article: Syrian Malabar Nasrani. Mathias A. Mundadan, another renowned Malayali auther also shares the same view in his book History and beyond (1997) and states "A typical example is the Northist section of the St Thomas Christians as compared to the Southist section." Similarly Joseph Thekkedath states in his book: The troubled Days of Francis Garcia S. J. Archbishop of Cranganore (1641-1659) Volume 187 of Analecta Gregoriana - "St. Thomas Christians of Malabar are divided into two communities called the Northists (Vadakkumbhagakkar, in Malayalam) and the Southists (Thekkumbhagakkar)." --Ashleypt

• Support evidence of a distinction of ethnic and religious community not born out under this name at least per Google Scholar: current title 10 of which 6 false positives, 4 genuine hits, 633x for "St Thomas Christians" 109x for "Saint Thomas Christians" ... I must admit I had my concerns about this article title when coming across it earlier this year. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of 4 positive hits mentioned genuine above, 3 refer to Wikipedia article Syrian Malabar Nasrani. So, only one genuine hit for Syrian Malabar Nasrani, and it too in a book of totally different subject related to Kalaripayattu, a martial art in Kerala. Since the book is as new as 2008, it's author also could have referred Wikipedia. Ashleypt (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. strike above, Ashleypt is correct, the 2008 evidently is a circular ref to Wikipedia too. Strengthen support for merge. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support : Both terms are synonymous and mutually interchangeable in any context. Prof. George Menachery has confirmed this view and anybody could contact him over EMail: kunjethy@yahoo.com to clarify further. Thom100's observation is partially correct but has some errors too. Later West Asian immigrants to Malabar were just absorbed to the larger and earlier community of St.Thomas Christians and altogether they were all called Saint Thomas Christians or Nasranis. --Ashleypt (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove information from the article while discussion is going on? That's not at all fair.Thom100 (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thom100 - could you help by comment on the difference between articles സുറിയാനി ക്രിസ്ത്യാനിക and സുറിയാനി മലബാർ നസ്രാണികൾ on Malayali wikipedia? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Shall we conclude: 5 Supports and just 2 Opposes. In the opposing side, Robin klein do not agree with the pivotal argument of Thom100. Supporting side cited multitude of sources while the same was just scant with opposing side. It is clearly observed that the discussion on the "Proposal to Merge" has already reached a consensus to approve the same with 71% majority. --Ashleypt (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Only seven users participated, and opposition is here. This discussion started only on 13 October 2011, please notice the haste in concluding. The most important point is, no more new support after I have added the facts to prove my points at 12:18 on 15 October 2011.. Another point is that, two users, Cuchullain and Ashleypt have come here with a "pre-planned agenda" which is against Wikipedia norms. This is very evident from their behaviour. I have evidence to prove this point also. Moreover, Cuchullain's edits on different articles reveal that this user is very biased against the Syriac Churches in Kerala especially the Malankara Churches. Because of this "pre-planned agenda", this proposal has to be dropped.Thom100 (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Don't make personal comments. You should also stop bludgeoning the conversation and stop edit warring or you will be blocked.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This proposal has been going on for well over a month now. It looks to me like consensus to merge has been clearly established, but if there are still objections we can ask an uninvolved admin to come and close the discussion for us. Thom100, are you satisfied that enough time has passed to establish a consensus? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, more than enough time has passed here, and consensus seems to be clear that these two terms refer to the same exact group of people. I'm willing to spearhead the work involved, but I'd like a formal closure to the discussion considering how much effort will be required and the sentiments of certain editors, including single-purpose accounts.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would be willing to help with the merge too. Also, for those who haven't noticed, I have requested that this discussion be closed over at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Request close of Saint Thomas Christians merge proposal, if you want to look. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry folks, I know this has been waiting to be closed for some time, but I hope you'll bear with me and wait a bit longer as I've noticed that there are related articles; as this merger would have a knock on effect on some other articles I have some queries. What is proposed should happen to the articles Nasrani Hagbah and List of Syrian Malabar Nasranis and the template Template:Nasrani people? I have looked at the point raised by Robin klein that Nasrani refers to an ethnic group while Saint Thomas Christian is their faith, as in Jews and Judaism - the main source for this appears to be George Menachery's work. This review for Glimpses of Nazraney Heritage, has the comment, "Many of the earliest existing documents in Kerala history deal with the Christians or Mar Thoma Nazranies of Kerala often called the Syrian Christians", which seems to indicate that we are talking about the same people; so the point is taken that there is a religion and there are the specific people who follow this religion. Robin klein's other point that there is already a mass of information, which means that a merge would entail sub-articles, is also worth considering. Can I ask - is it feasible to have an article on the people who follow this religion distinct from the religion itself? At present the two article titles are geared to talk about the people. Would it be possible to have an article on the faith - Saint Thomas Christianity and an article on the people Saint Thomas Christians (or Nasrani)? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Silk, and thanks for taking the time to try and sort this out. One of the main causes of confusion here is the claim that "Nasrani" is an "ethnic" name, while "St. Thomas Christian" is a "religious" name. This is incorrect; in the context of India, the terms are synonyms, and are used as such in Menachery's work. I believe that Robin agreed with this? Anyway, personally, I don't see the need for separate articles on the St. Thomas Christians as an ethnic group and as a religious group. There's just too much overlap; I'd rather have one good article on the subject than two that just duplicate each other. At any rate, as our current articles just cover the same thing, what we'd really be talking about is a merge of both current articles plus forking some content to a separate "religion" article. That might be feasible, but as I said below, I'd recommend calling the main merged article "St. Thomas Christians" and the religion article "St. Thomas Christian churches" or something similar.

As for those other articles you mention, I don't think it will be a big problem. As I say, "Nasrani" in this context is a synonym for "St. Thomas Christian", so there's not a really pressing need to move all related articles. However, "Syrian Malabar Nasrani" is a made-up construct that barely exists outside of Wikipedia, so any article using it needs to change.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm closing this as consensus to merge. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving forward with the merger

Okay, the merge discussion has closed as consensus to merge, and it's time to get started. I think everyone involved understands that this is going to require a lot of work, as this is a big subject and these two articles have been separate for years. The first step will be merging the page histories of the two pages. I'll do this today. All previous versions will be found in the history, so we can bring in any necessary material as we work.
Once the actual merger is done we can start combining the material from both previous articles (and obviously any new material that would improve it as well). This is what's going to take the most time and energy. I will try to work on this through the week as time permits.
Some users have discussed having a separate article on the religion of the St. Thomas Christians, to be called "Saint Thomas Christian Churches" or something similar. If Robin klein or any other editor wants to get started on that, the material from both existing articles will be available in the article history, and can be forked over at any time.
This will be a big project, but it's a necessary one, and a long time coming. Hopefully it will go a long way to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Saint Thomas Christians.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the page histories are extremely complex and overlapping, so I'm not going to perform a history merge, at least not quite yet. We can get started on merging content from the Nasrani page over here and attribute it properly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Got a start on it today. I removed some duplicate information and plugged the gaps with information from Malankara Church, including the academic sources used there.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Persian connection

Paragraph 2 begins by saying that, Historically the Saint Thomas Christian community was part of the Church of the East, centred in Persia.

I am interested to find historical evidences to prove this claim.

Reading about recent excavations at Muziris and Berenice Troglodytica, I know that there was close contact between Muziris in Kerala and Alexandria in Egypt during the first century BCE to third century CE.

Reading the Church History by Eusebius, Book V, Chapter 10, I find that Pantaenus the Philosopher from Alexandria came to Muziris in 2nd century. (The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea in Palastine. Translated from the originals by The Rev. Christian Frederick Cruse. George Bell & Sons, London. 1874.)

Now, is it possible to show some such evidences that the Saint Thomas Christians (Marthoma Nazranis) had some such relation with Iran (Persia) in the first and second century. Also names of the Bishops/priests and what they were doing in Kerala. If you have only evidences written by historians in the last few centuries, or only in an internet article, please explain how they came to this conclusion. If you have no substancial, evidences please consider this as inaccurate and delete this sentence.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the Saint Thomas Christians were connected with the Church of the East is very well known, and the material is now correctly cited in the article. The sources we're citing that indicate this are G. Menachery, Erik Frykenberg, and Wilhelm Baum & Dietmar W. Winkler. The Frykenberg book in particular has a lengthy section on it that can be previewed through Google Books. Not that it matters for our purposes, but there are indeed plenty of primary sources on this as well, for instance the work of Cosmas Indicopleustes and writings of Patriarch Mar Timothy, who established India as a separate province.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Chuchulian. I have been reading the note above and see that the earliest note that you have is the Christian Topography by Cosmas Indicopleustes, a rich Christian merchant (who later became a monk) from Alexandria in Egypt. (Please note that he was from Alexandria and not from Persia) He visited India in 522 CE and there he saw a Persian bishop. I hope you are not saying that seeing a Persian bishop in India means that he was ruling over the Indian Christians.

Around 120 years before the visit of Cosmas, during the time of Safur II, 72 families escaped from Persia arrived in 345 CE, and settled in Kerala under the leadership of Knai Thomma. They were also Nazranis but not necessarily Marthoma Nazranis (Saint Thomas Christians). Probably it was during their time Persian bishops or priests began arriving. Nazranis were there in Malabar (Kerala) before 345 CE. Also very well known facts need not be always true. Once the fact that the earth was flat was very well known.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You can look into the cited sources for further information. As I've explained to you elsewhere, Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources by the experts in the field, rather than primary sources, which can be interpreted differently by different people. Also keep in mind that the article only says that an organized Christian presence can be traced to around the 3rd century, when East Syrian Christians from Persia settled in India. Over time, stronger and stronger links with the Persian Church (the Church of the East) were established, and eventually India was separated into an Ecclesiastical Province with its own metropolitan bishop. There may indeed have been Christians in India long before that, and I think the article makes that clear.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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)