Talk:Hormizd the Martyr

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because BEING a Catholic Saint is the first claim of significance. Moreover 1. The substitution of Rabban Hormizd with the name of Hormizd, the Martyr in the sixteenth century in the context of the St. Thomas Christians of Malabar is a clear-cut proof for the forced latinization of the church of the Christians of St. Thomas with an oriental character. 2. It seems that the Christians did not easily accept the change of the patronship from a a Nestorian patron to Catholic patron, immediately in the sixteenth century. 3. The present article is rich with citations and sources that prove the existence of the person of Hormizd, the Martyr. 4. The politics that an "outsider" of the context might not easily understand. a) the person (We do not name him) who has asked for the deletion of this page is always a troublesome person in many of the pages that are related with the Christians of St. Thomas. b) See the histories that he has tampered with a number of pages in the past [enough to count the number of redirections that he provoked]. The reason, we doubt, is his probable overzealous approach and the love for his church. c) being zealous is a good thing, but it should be followed by reason and academic intelligence, otherwise we all could be destructive as far as knowledge is concerned. Being zealot is equal to fanaticism and fundamentalism, a big problem of our contemporary world. Those who are caught up in zealotry, see only one side of the coin, that too vaguely, and waste the whole life, fighting for unnecessary things, even though they are not capable of seeing the other side of the coin. Pity on them. d)the user who wanted the deletion is intolerant to the sources that discloses the historical truths that he is either not able accept or not able to understand. e)This is a clear-cut example of removing history with personal ideologies. The personal ideologies of the user, i suppose, focuss on the preoccupation to prove that the Christians of St. Thomas were always Catholic, No. Because the church in Malabar was under the East Syrian (Nestorian) Church of Mesopotamia under 1553. It is only in 1553 a Catholic wing of Patriachate originated in Chaldea (Mesopotamia) and the Christians of St. Thomas followed their ways of the East Syrian Church including their saint as Rabban Hormizd. Ideologies cannot cancel historical truths. History will judge us in the future. We cannot hide truths. An ideology that is blind to the facts and and reality: fanaticism, fools heaven, etc.... Pity. f)The Catholic Church, unfortunately interpreted everything in Malabar as Nestorian, including their local customs, changing the memory of even a Nestorian saint Rabban Hormizd, substituting him a saint with similar name namely Hormizd, the Martyr, coming from the same Persia. g) Todays Christians of St. Thomas can accept or nor accept this change; because there is no papal approbation of the synod of Diamper (1599) in which the change of name is decided.

If the user again presses
for deletion of this argument, it indicates certain serious matter. a) He does not respect the Catholic Church hierarchy, including the popes of the same Church. b) He says indirectly that all the church prescriptions on the part of the Catholic Church of the 16th century was not to be respected. c) He says that "I am not interested in Hormizd, the Martyr, that the Catholic Church decided for us in 1599 substituting our Suriani saint Rabban Hormizd." Yes he can argue for that, he can propagate the message and do whatever necessary to get permission from the present Syro-Malabar hierarchy to get that approval. d)He rejects the Roman Martyrology where it is celebrated Hormizd the Martyr on 8 August, thereby abusing and offending the Catholic Church, questioning the authority of Roman Martyrology of 1583, published with the imprimature of the Roman Pope. He need not accept Hormizd, the martyr; but do not attack the Catholic faiths. e)If he is not agreeing certain positions in the article, he can disagree with the statements with credible citations within in the article. (But he does not have positive sources. He claims that "None of the given references say about a martyr Hormizd," thereby cheating the respected memebers of the Wikipedia to manipulate them to delete the page. In fact, all the references prove the existence of Hormizd, the martyr. Did he read them or understand them is another question. We think, absolutely he has not. f)The user who asked for deletion created a page, to glorify a person of his own family namely Prasant Palakkappilly. This is, in our thought, against the ethics of Wikipedia. And we strongly ask the Wikipedia to consider to delete his family page from a public encyclopedia as Wikipedia. Already many users have asked for the same. The only significance of the above-mentioned page is that the person that he glorifies is a person from his own family!!!!!!! This is an abuse and offence to the world of knowledge, reflecting how one person can see only one's own, as it is the only reality and the biggest reality.

g) But here we deal with a historical problem by highlighting historical person of Hormizd, the martyr.
1. Why the Catholic Church could not tolerate an East Syrian Mesopotamian saint (See our bibliography in the Article, Geddes). The same intolerance is here manifested by the user who wanted to delete this page, expressing his hatred to a saint, namely Hormizd, the Martyr, revered by the Catholics. Who is bigger, a man from his own family who owns an entire Wikipage or a Catholic Saint of fifth century???!!! Let Saint Hormizd, the Martyr and Rabban Hormizd pardon his faults. '''Think and grow, and nobody can erase the centuries' of history with a speedy deletion request and expecting every day to see whether the Wikipedia administrators be cheated by that request. This is academically speaking ridiculous.''' 2. What are the reasons behind the forced latinization of the century, not only in India but also in Ethiopia and many other places.

I only request the persons concerned to consider the points above-mentioned in case you still feel to delete it. However, I humbly inform you that the user who asked deletion has a political motive behind. I ask the user to disagree with the article within the article with credible bibligraphy, instead of attempting suppressing informations: the hardwork of other users.Analyst2000 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)