Talk:Varghese Payyappilly

Palakkappillil

The following discussion regarding the family of Fr. Varghese Palakkappillil has been copied from the talk page [1] as it will be apt and useful for this article. Payyappilly is his plot name and is not to be mistaken as his family name which is Palakkappillil. His full name as in his will is Illathuparambilirikkum Payyappillilaya Palakkappillil Varghese Kathanar. User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 19:43, 05 May 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to take you at your word. However, it will be nice if you could talk to the Sisters of the Destitute and get them to write about his family name on their web page. Otherwise, I think the name Palakkappillil would not find much credence. Since the canonisation process has begun, unless this is done now, lot of official documents will proliferate with the wrong name. Karnan (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I ve already sent an e mail to the SD sisters through their web site.. Im waiting for their reply. Nz now they have added the word Palakkappilil with his family though with lots of spelling mistake (payapilly palackapilly as given in their web site. [2] i ll surely send a detailed mail to them with facts n figures.

In fact, for your information, till recently the SD sisters were of the opinion that the Congregation was founded by Fr. George Valliarampath. Took a lot of effort to correct them. Fr. Varghese Palakkappillil died just after 2 years of founding and then it was Valliarampath who carried out all the activities of SD.

Nz thanks a lot for the support n concern.. A mammoth task ahead.. In wiki nz its better to give his original name rather than the popular name esp when there is a family named Payyapilly which has absolutely no connection with the Palakkappillil family.. In the very second sentence itself i ve specified that he is widely known as Varghese Payyappilly.. That ll do i guess.. Thanks User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. Yes, perhaps they will need some time to make the corrections.

I have known about the founder of the SD correctly from the beginning, but your are right in saying that many people have confused him with Mgr. Valliarumpath (who had an important role in their development, though none in the founding). That the SD themselves were party to this is news to me though. (When I visited their convents, I used to see pictures of both Fr. Palakkappillil and Mgr. Valliarumpath.) Once such impressions gain root it becomes very difficult to correct.

It is always better to use his correct name. Yes, the name Payyappilly is shared by lots of families, and it is difficult to make out the actual family, so a mention of it as a popular misnomer suffices. I too did not know which family the late priest belonged to until you pointed it out. It seems the Ernakulam Archdiocese also has got the name wrong: [3] (From various stories, I know that they are even more resistant to any correction...)

I shall correct the name wherever I see it wrongly written from now on. Also, let me know if I can help in any way to clear this confusion. Thanks. Karnan (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Varghese Palakkappillil.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Varghese Palakkappillil.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) 13:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Pl remove Varghese Palakkapillil from this page. No need to glorify this Christian priest throughout Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.208.197.235 (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 

Common Name

According to WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia articles should use most common name as the title of the subject. All the sources included in the article use his name as Fr. Varghese Payyapilly. I am not questioning whether he belongs to the Palakkapilly family. But we need more sources to prove "Palakkappally" was actually used as part of his name. We should not include his whole address in the title. "Official name" does not take. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.--InarZan Verifiable 11:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Good move. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The offficial website of the Syro-Malabar Church refers to his name as Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly (www.smcim.org - Liturgy ->Feasts) which is more than enough for a proof. Also in most of the references given it is clearly said that he blongs to Payapilly Palakkappilly family. Moreover his official name as given in his baptismal register is also Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly. There are several wrong usages of his name in several unofficial websites (for eg: payyappilly, ,palakkappillil, palakkapilly, payyapilly, payappilly etc...) That doesnot mean that the wiki article should also follow those mistakes.

The website of the SD Convent refers him as Varghese Payapilly which also says that he hails from Payapilly Palakkappilly family. Some others refer to him as Varghese Palakkappillil. Such minor errors do come in such web sites. So how can you conclude that Varghese Payyapilly is his common name. The correct name and spelling is Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly. It is given in the official web site of the Church and S D Convent. I belong to the same Payapilly Palakkappilly family and Fr. Varghese is my grand father's grand father's brother. This whole article was created by me single handedly with lots of effort. So please trust my words and follow his correct name. Moreover, the name Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly also encompasses the names Varghese Payapilly and Varghese Palakkappilly by which most of the people refer him. Some call him Varghese Payapilly. Some others Varghese Palakkappilly. Therefore the present name will be helpful to avoid confusion. I guess you will agree to me. Thanks. PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning his full name. The point is, our WP:COMMONNAME policy applies. You really need to stop warring over this move and second guessing why the shorter version of his name is used in sourcesetc. - Sitush (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see the longer version of his name in the official website of the Syro-Malabar Church.

http://www.syromalabarchurch.in/seasons.php PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not interested because it is pretty much irrelevant. If one place calls him X and a hundred call him Y, then we call him Y. It is usually as simple as that. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Do not misguide. Official Church Website calls him Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly.

Official Website of Sisters of the Destitute calls him Varghese Payapilly and says he Hails from Payapilly Palakkappilly family. Several other unofficial websites call him Varghese Payyapilly, Varghese Palakkappillil etc etc The name which you proposed - Varghese Payyapilly hardly appear in any officail records. Please note the spellings which I have mentioned. So for consensus we will follow the official web site of the Church and Sisters of the Destitute. It is as simple as that. PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself,. Just answer this question, please: have you read WP:COMMONNAME? - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove! Among the references given in the article none of the websites shows the proposed name(spelling) Payyapilly. So please understand Payyapilly is not the WP:COMMONNAME. 2 websites give Payyappilly. 2 websites including the official church website give Payapilly Palakkappilly. Official web site of SD gives his name as Payapilly and family name (or surname) as Payapilly Palakkappilly. So by all means Payapilly Palakkappilly is the apt name for the article to avoid all sorts of confusion. Please try to understand that 'Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly' satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. The present name is apt name and requires no change at all.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, give me some time then to filter out the rubbish (mirrors etc) using GSearch. One thing that has struck me is that sources may refer to his 3-word name on first usage and thereafter shorten it. This could be more messy that I first thought. Bear with me. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Just take the case of Kuriakose Elias Chavara. People hardly refer to him with his 3 word name. He is commonly referred as Chavara pithavu or fr. chavara or fr. chavara kuriakose. But that doesnot mean that his wiki aricle should be titled Fr. Chavara. Everyone knows his name is Chavara Kuriakose Elias. Similarly here the article can be named Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly though for convenience people refer to him as fr. varghese or fr payapilly or fr. palakkappilly or fr. varghese palakkappilly or fr. varghese payapilly. Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly is his correct name and can also be regarded as his common name. This will avoid all sorts of confusion in future.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That is the wrong argument: you have "admitted" that the common name is not the three-word variant. What confusion do you envisage in future? - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly, Varghese Payapilly, Varghese Palakkappilly are all used with equal frequencies in different sources. All 3 can be considered his common name. Moreover, some people know him by the name Payapilly, some others by the name Palakkappilly. That is why i told Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly will avoid all sorts of confusion. Afterall it is his original name. Why to change it.!PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Geez, you keep changing the story here. First you say one is more common, then another, and now all are the same. Forget what his original name was because it is totally irrelevant to this discussion, per WP:COMMONNAME. Forget that he is known by several names because we have redirects which can resolve that issue, ie: we have pages for variants of his name that redirect people to this page automatically. Now, do you have a valid policy-based reason for not moving this article? Or is it just that you have an affinity with name as per your own user name? - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do you bother about my username. I know that is what is misguiding you. I do not have any affinity towards Palakkappilly.I have usernames with Payapilly also in several other websites. Leave that. I am not arguing about the frequency. You yourself can find it out and confirm it. Even you agreed that sources may refer to his 3-word name on first usage and thereafter shorten it. It is just a common practice. Surces may refer Rahul Dravid as Rahul Dravid on first usage and thereafter shorten it to Dravid..! That is not a valid reason to change article name. Please understand that the name Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly is a common usage.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not bothered about your name, I was merely asking. Since we are in agreement that the shorter name is more commonly used - even in those sources that initially mention his full name - the shorter version is what should be applied here. You have absolutely no leg to stand on regarding this: pretty much everything that you have said supports InarZan's original move. We will have a redirect from VPP to VP and the article should say something like "VP, who is officially referred to as VPP ..." , so there is no real issue. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets not carry on with this discussion indefinitely. I have already given many reasons why not to move the article. I will just repeat the most important reason. Among the references given in the article none of the websites shows the proposed name(spelling) Payyapilly which you are arguing for. So please understand Payyapilly is not the WP:COMMONNAME.So there is no question of moving this article to Varghese Payyapilly. I think even you will agree to me on this. 2 websites including the official church website give Payapilly Palakkappilly. Official web site of SD gives his name as Payapilly and family name (or surname) as Payapilly Palakkappilly. 2 websites give Payyappilly. Moreover, the official church website uses the name Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly in 3 or 4 places and it does not give the 2 word name anywhere. So by all counts Payapilly Palakkappilly ranks first and is the apt name for the article to avoid all sorts of confusion. Please try to understand that 'Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly' satisfies WP:COMMONNAME..PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess you are sensible enough to understand that the name Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly is used more number of times than the name Varghese Payyapilly. Why do you want to move the article to less common name. So there is no move required.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, For the reasons that I have stated and you have confirmed. I will likely be moving it unless my research turns up something dramatic. That you fail to understand the policy is just one of those things, I guess. For now, there is nothing more to be said here until someone else gets involved and/or I find something that knocks a big hole in what both you and I agree on. That might happen! - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

InarZan initially said that "All the sources included in the article use his name as Fr. Varghese Payyapilly". This argument was proved wrong. You yourself confirmed that "sources may refer to his 3-word name on first usage and thereafter shorten it". And I have proved it is even better than that - the official church website calls him only by the name Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly, that too 3 or 4 times (Sections Feasts and Chronology). Now it is as clear as the daylight that the present name suits all the requirements. For the reasons that I have stated and you have confirmed the article name should remain Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

And, ye again, I refer you to WP:COMMONNAME. Not official name, not what he is called once in a source. Please read the darn guidance. - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Again you are saying ONCE..! Please read my above sentence "the official church website calls him ONLY by the name Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly, that too 3 or 4 times (Sections Feasts and Chronology)."

Again catholicgk calls him ONLY by the name Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly.It is not only his official name, but his common name too.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! Sorry, but I have just spotted something that could be rather nasty. Please review this thread on your talk page. The implication is that (theoretically) you may have influenced the depiction of name at one of the very key organisations involved with this guy. This is extremely dodgy territory and I suspect that it has potential ramifications for your comments here and even perhaps for any involvement that you may have in editing the article. I think that you need probably to recuse yourself from this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool down buddy. What is wrong in the given thread. Even there I proved my point very well. So is the case here. I have given all the proofs which you asked for and now you are diverting the topic.! Come to the matter. If you do not have answers to the proofs and evidences which I gave then better we will stop this discussion and the name will remain as Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2012

Alas, you have two people who have argued against you based on policy. It isn't a great situation but there is consensus of a sort for change, the more so because of your now-apparent COI: for what ever the reason may be, you seem to pushing for Palakkappilly to be a part of usage even on official websites unconnected to Wikipedia. That suggests a campaign of sorts, and yet still even you admit it is not the common name but the official one. I'll have a think but will probably be moving this again; if you revert that move then you would be edit warring (well, move warring but it is likely to be classed as disputive which ever description you give it). - Sitush (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, You have no say to move this article unless and untill you provide ample reasons for your move. I have very well explained for all your queries. I gave all the proofs which you asked for. And here is the answer for your latest (irrelevant) argument:

You said two people have argued against me. So what?? Is that a valid reason for moving the article? And the previous person who argued with me very well agreed that Palakkappilly should be be the name of the article. I guess you deliberately forgot his final comments. So in effect that person actually is on my part and against your arguments. So at present two people are warring against you to retain the name Palakkappilly. So please do not try to twist facts. Again you said that I "seem to pushing for Palakkappilly to be a part of usage even on official websites unconnected to Wikipedia". Is it a crime? You are speaking as if I went to the official websites and frightened them. Instead I provided enough facts and proofs to prove that Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly is his common name. Please understand that I am not pushing for Palakkappilly. I am pushing only because I do not want mistakes to creep in in Wikipedia. So if not you cant appreciate me, then at least do not discourage me. Here I have provided you all the proofs which you asked for. Now it is crystal clear that Varghese Payapilly Palakkappily is the apt title for the article.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk)10:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If you move the article again without any reason you would be edit warring (well, move warring but it is likely to be classed as disputive which ever description you give it)..PalakkappillyAchayan (talk)10:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am ready to give you more sources if you need which uses the name only Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly (that too more than ONCE or TWICE or THRICE as you require)and bottomlining the fact that it is his common name. But I guess I have already provided sufficient proofs. So better we retain the article name and stop this discussion.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk)10:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS and please can you learn how to indent your posts. I would rather that more people were involved in this discussion and that is why I am having a think but there is no justification for you to revert any move that may happen. This is not about personalities and so your "at least do not discourage me" is irrelevant; this is about policies, and understanding of those policies seems to be quite a problem with articles involving the Saint Thomas Christians. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not indenting my posts properly. I will be conscious from now on. Back to the topic, I have given you enough reasons to prevent the move. I gave you what all you asked for , just because I abide by WP policies. Just like you, even I do not want an edit war. I am so sure the present name does not violate any of the WP policies. So lets stop our arguments and finalize the present name. Cheers..PalakkappillyAchayan (talk)10:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not abiding by the policies, though. That is the entire problem here: you think that you are but you clearly either have not read them or do not understand them. Please take another look at WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COI. Oh, and WP:IDHT (the last is not a policy but it is of relevance). - Sitush (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This discussion was initiated by InarZan because he could not find any sources mentioning the 3 word name. So it was doubted if the 3 word name satisfies the WP:COMMONNAME criteria. In order to irradicate your concerns I provided you enough sources which uses the 3 word name several times as per your requirement. Thus now it is proved that the name Varghese payapilly Palakkappilly satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. That is why I am inviting you to reach a concensus and retain the article name.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk)11:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No. You have provided evidence that the VPP name is used but not that it is the more common usage. In fact, you have said yourself that it is abbreviated even by those sources that do refer to the VPP name. Game over. Live with it and be assured that the redirect will address your concerns. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I proved VPP is the more common usage with clear numbers. But you are deliberately acting ignorant. So there is no point in talking much now. No move. No arguments. Chapter closedPalakkappillyAchayan (talk)11:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I find this odd. Anyway, a couple of years ago you were having all sorts of problems like this and you deleted numerous threads involving warnings etc from your talk page. In among all that refactoring, you admitted that "VP" is the "more popular" name, although for some reason it is date-stamped 23 April 2010 but appears in the diff of 24 April. As a consequence, and because nothing appears to have changed, the page should be moved. If you don't like that then report me. - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That was 2010. Two years back there were just some unofficial sources which mistakenly gave emphasis to VP more than VPP. Even they couldnt give the correct spelling. Now the situation has changed drastically. I can very well prove (in fact proved) the name VPP is more common than VP in all ways. Even you admitted that most of the sources say VPP initially. I already provided 2 or 3 reliable source which gave only VPP that too repeatedly (not just initially). Now if you still want to move then I know how to fight it back. I can provide any number of sources to anyone to prove VPP is more common than VP.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk)13:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

So do it, because so far you have not done anything to support your opinion and have instead provided information that buttresses the need to move. For starts, you could list all the sources that used to show VP in 2010 and that now only show VPP. It would need to be a long list. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to move the article it is your headache to provide a "long list" of sources which is showing Varghese Payyapilly. So instead of simply misleading people please provide your evidences to prove your part. After that I will give my list (i have already given some reliable references). I bet I can give you more number of sources showing Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly than your list showing Varghese Payyapilly.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk)04:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Again I say "so do it", Stop these empty threats and provide some evidence. WP:BURDEN may well apply here, bearing in mind that you seem already to have agreed that the VP version is more commonly used. - Sitush (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop your fake argument. I have not said VP is more commonly used. VPP is more commonly used. And this list will prove it:

1. smcim.org - Official Syro Malabar Catholic Church website

2. catholicgk

3. Thevara-History and Culture by D. Dhanuraj and Aneish P. Rajan pp-13, 14, 15

4. Springs of Compassion by Sr. Savio SD - It is the biography of VPP officially published by Sisters of the Destitute.

5. Moreover, the Malayalam daily newspaper Deepika on 7 September 2009 gave his name as VPP along with the news of being declared a Servant of God.

In several other books and articles too his name is given as VPP (not once but several times and VP is not used at all). If you insist I will have a thorough look at all his books and will provide more sources. But before that please understand the sources which use Varghese Payyapilly is a minority. Please count and see. Just 2 or 3 sources. PalakkappillyAchayan (talk)05:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you read through this thread again. For example, you have on several occasions admitted that you prefer VPP because it is official and not because it is the more common usage. As for SD, well, take a look at this, this, this, this, this, this (Blogspot, but appears to be official SD), this, this, and page 4, I do not dispute that VPP may be some sort of official monicker, but it is not the name by which he is most commonly known nad, as you have said, even in those sources where VPP is used initially, it is most commonly thereafter abbreviated to VP. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You have given just 6 sources (including one blog). Even I gave 6 sources (including the newspaper news). And you are saying the official site of S D uses VP more commonly. OK. Even I have an equally good argument for that. Official website of the Catholic Church uses VPP more commonly. It says VPP wherever it mentions about him. Nowhere VP is given. Again "Springs of Compassion" is the official biography of VPP published by SD which calls him VPP almost everywhere. VP is used very rarely. As of now we can very well conclude VPP is much more commonly used than VP. You are talking only on the basis of the website sistersofthedestitute.org.! Apart from that you have nothing to show. All other websites which you gave mentions VP just ONCE and that does not count (according to your previous comments). Majority of the sources which I gave uses VPP a number of times which makes VPP his common name. And even you agreed it is his official name too. So by all means VPP has a very good edge over VP. Even the website sistersofthedestitute.org says his surname is Payapilly Palakkappilly. So now have a rethink on moving this article. Or wait for more sources which I will give shortly. PalakkappillyAchayan (talk)15:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And I say yet again, "official name" is not "common name": the official name of Elizabeth II, for example, is not used as our article title. The SD website quite clearly uses the shorter version more frequently, despite your apparent attempts to get them to change it, and VP/VPP was their founder! You also completely twist my reference to "once": my point was that if a name is used by a source in long form once and then subsequently in short form, the latter is common - you have completely misrepresented me by saying that because a source only uses the name once throughout its text then that is useless. You really need to start reading properly and slow down the reactions: any more misrepresentations of what I have said will likely end my already tenuous assumption of good faith here. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You are speaking as if official name never happens to be one's common name. I am saying with ample proof that VPP is his common and official name. You are considering only the SD website to reach to your absurd conclusion. That can not be allowed. I gave you official church website, official biography by SD and several other sources and books which uses VPP several times. You are acting as if you have not seen them. Count the sources clearly and see VPP is more commonly used than VP. PalakkappillyAchayan (talk)04:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to comment on sources that I cannot see because you have failed to provide adequate information to track down what it is that you are referring to. Resorting to abuse and misrepresentation does not help move things on. - Sitush (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no abuse, no misrepresentation. I have provided reliable sources (including official websites) which you CAN ALSO SEE. Regarding the books mentioned, though I have given all the details including the page numbers , feel free to ask if you need any more additional information. And you are free to check and confirm the books. Your reluctance to do that is not an excuse to move the article. It is very well proved that VPP is his common name and the apt name for the article.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk)05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've been doing some digging around, on and off, and I do indeed still require more information because you have still failed to indicate that VPP is his common name rather than his official name. Even in official sources, he is commonly referred to as VP. Actually, having read around things I am beginning to query whether the guy even passes our tests of notability - coverage from uninvolved sources appears to be slight but I would need specialist input because of his status on the road to beatification etc. - Sitush (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop beating around the bush. I have given the OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE SYRO-MALABAR CATHOLIC CHURCH which mentions him as VPP several times. And many other reliable sources too. You are the one who failed to provide sources to prove your part. No more on this. Cheers.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk)07:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And I have told you that his official name is irrelevant per WP:COMMONNAME, and asked for more information as per your offer. You cannot just terminate a thread and get your way in this situation. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I fear that you are once misunderstanding things. I did not say anything about the official name. I gave OFFICIAL WEBSITE which uses his name as VPP proving VPP is his common name. Because you tried to mislead saying "Even in official sources, he is commonly referred to as VP". Please do not come with fake and baseless arguments. I clearly gave more number of sources mentioning him as VPP. And unlike you I did not give any blogs to prove my argument.! You cant simply move an article as per your wish. We need proofs and sources and you terribly failed.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk)03:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why the official website should be taken as sufficient for WP:COMMONNAME. Queen Elizabeth II has a very long name that is shown on some official websites, but it is not the name that she is commonly known as. - Sitush (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As if I gave only official website!!!!! I have given many other sources too. Stop acting blind. PalakkappillyAchayan 11:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Dubious source - History and Culture

Why is Thevara - History and Culture a reliable source? I've found a comment about its publication here but cannot for the life of me see how this booklet of anecdotes has any place in our article, especially bearing in mind that it is used to support a speculative statement. From what do the authors derive their authority? Who is the publisher? What is the ISBN, LCCN etc (if any)? What connection do the authors have to the subject matter (if any)? Was it peer reviewed (and I do not mean launched by Panikkar)? - Sitush (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thevara (which includes Perumanoor) is the birthplace of VPP and that is why it is relevant here.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I fear that you are once again misunderstanding things with regard to policy etc. I didn't ask about the relevance of Thevara but rather the reliability of the booklet. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The "speculative statements" which you deleted are not supported by the source Thevara-History and Culture. It was supported by the official biography published by the SD - Springs of Compassion. See this. It (in fact founts of compassion) was deleted by you while cleaning up and by your mistake "Thevara-History and Culture" came in its place instead. And the document given in the link 'Founts of Compassion'(FOC) is an unedited copy of 'Springs of Compassion'(SOC). Since the final copy SOC is not available in the internet, I gave FOC. But you deleted it saying it is an unimportant source. But you cant say SOC is an unimportant source because SOC the final copy and is official. So I am replacing the deleted content. And for your information SOC is not just a carbon copy of FOC. Many factual, grammatical and spelling mistakes in FOC was corrected in SOC. But the portion which you mentioned as "speculative" is same in both the versions apart from some spelling corrections. So I am replacing the deleted content since it is supported by an official source and not by any dubious source. Feel free to ask if any queries.(PalakkappillyAchayan 10:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC))

Nowhere have you addressed my query: what makes the booklet reliable. I am rapidly losing any faith here: you seem continuously to avoid the issues raised and counter with irrelevancies. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thevara - History and Culture - Publisher: Principal, Sacred Heart College, Thevara, Kochi 13, Kerala, India. Copyright: Principal, Sacred Heart College, Thevara, Kochi 13, Kerala, India. Photos: Seppi Sebastian. Drawings: John Xavier. Typesetting and Printed at Aargee Communications Udayamperoor, Ernakulam. First Edition: November 2001.PalakkappillyAchayan 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You still have not addressed my point. In fact, that corrections were required rather demonstrates the potential unreliability. The content should not be in the article. - Sitush (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed your point. Now if you are still not satisfied, here is another solid and reliable evidence.Karunyasarani Vol 4, Mar 2012 - The Servant of God Fr. Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly Bulletin- Publisher: Superior General, The Congregation of the Sisters of the Destitute. Editorial Board: Chief Editor: Roselin Elavanal. Editors: Kusumam, Mary James, Reesa, Marians, Divya Rose, Soumy Jose. Designed and Printed at Santhom Offset Press. Chunangamvely-12. -PalakkappillyAchayan 11:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You are producing a stream of unreliable sources here. Have you read WP:RS and noted the significance of independence? You should also read WP:BRD - we are discussing and so you really should not be reinstating. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Family and speculative brahmin status

Information from the SD is almost by definition hagiographic and published by an interested party (rather than an independent one). Furthermore, their speculations concerning past brahmin connections etc of his family are completely irrelevant to the subject of this article. The article is about VPP, not his ancestors. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the section is about VPP's family, the information seem to be relevant in the article. Not fair to delete a well supported information. Reverting it since the previous version looks better.Varkeymanavalan (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not about aesthetics, which is covered by WP:MOS, but rather about focus. The article does not concern his ancestors etc and the amount of content devoted to them is undue weight. This article does not exist for reasons of familial vanity, and both the items that you have restored and the issue of naming discussed above have the appearance of promoting that above policy-compliant content. Please self-revert. - Sitush (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I do not feel any undue weightage is given to his ancestors here. The section family deserves ample information just like other sections namely Life, Death etc. Since we have some well supported details about his family, better we include them in the article. And it is surprising to see that such a big discussion happened regarding his name. As per my accurate knowledge the name VPP is how he is commonly known among the people. The sources also tesifies the same. Varkeymanavalan (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You have just admitted that the family stuff is overweighted by calling it a "section" - no way is such a thing justified. What you know concerning use of his name is irrelevant, and the sources testify no such thing. Furthermore, your edit summary to the above comment gives me some cause for concern because, as with the contributor to the naming discussion, you have chosen to copy a quirky piece of phrasing originally used by me. You are hopefully aware that you should not be using two accounts to edit this article etc - would anything turn up if I opened a case at WP:SPI, especially bearing in mind some previous similar "disruptive" contributors here, ie: Palakkappillilachayan (talk · contribs) in addition to PalakkappillyAchayan (talk · contribs)? - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, stop your fake allegations right now. This is not the first time you are threatening and diverting the topic. I completely agree with Varkeymanavalan's comments here. And I do not have time now to answer to your stupid allegations. But one thing, Palakkappillilachayan is an inactive account of mine. I am not using it now. And I very well know it is not at all a crime to have another account. I have not done any mischievious activities using it. I had my own reasons to start it and stop using it. Do not have time to explain in detail now. Bit busy now but catch you soon.PalakkappillyAchayan 11:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What odd timing. Please read this. You appear to have a history. Far from diverting the topic, I have consistently kept things on topic and responded to queries etc. You have not in previous threads and you have not here. Find a policy-based reason why this content should be reinstated, please. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Springs of Compassion — Biography of the Servant of God ...

"Springs of Compassion — Biography of the Servant of God Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly" is cited. Please can someone provide some links to it or to reviews of it. Failing that, I would consider it an unreliable source. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not at Worldcat, not is it obviousy using GBooks or GSearch. I strongly suspect this is another self-published type of source, probably through the auspices of the Sisters of the Destitute. If so, it has no place here. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The book is available in the market. Feel free to check it and clarify your doubts. It is a reliable source.PalakkappillyAchayan 04:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

What does "in the market" mean? Which market? - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusing centuries

I have removed this. I rather think that the author means "20th century" rather than 19th, as stated, because otherwise it makes little sense with regard to the 1927 foundation of the Sisters. However, if 20th century was intended then we'll need a much, much better source than the one provided. For example, various caste associations were working with the destitute in Kerala well before 1927. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Connected contributor

There appears to be a familiar connection between a major contributor to this article, Achayan, and the subject. Editor previously used same familial name (and appears to have utilized other accounts to edit the article and this talk page). ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)