Talk:List of Saint Thomas Christians

Sourcing
Sourcing is absolutely atrocious in this list. Wikipedia's [|Wikipedia's policy on lists]clearly states two things : 1) To identify someone's religion, you have to provide a reliable source showing that the person believes in that religion. 2) To identify someone's ethnicity, you have to provide a quality source saying that the person in question belongs to that particular ethnic group.

The first question here is --: by identifying someone as belonging to St Thomas Christian community, are we also identifying his or her religion? If yes, then we would need additional sources to vouch for the fact that the person continues to believe in Christianity. A relevant case is AK Antony. He was born into a Christian family. But his wikipedia entry says his religion is 'atheist'. So, can we still include him in 'St Thomas Christians'?

Second question is: even if we assume that Nazrani is not a religious identity, but an ethnic identity, we still need sources to back that claim up. Those sources have not been provided here. Several items have been deleted to draw attention to this deficiency.

Restriction of list
While many people want to see positive role models here, I don't think you can restrict list to just that. Someone just tried to insert a criminal. I don't know whether it was valid or not, but if there is an article, you can't really keep him off! The list is for "notables" - we cannot "chose." Student7 (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notables
There is an article for Notables in “List of Syrian Malabar Nasranis” where we can enter the names with or without their photographs, It is not a good idea for the editors to enter their favourite names in as many articles as possible. I wish that all of us agree to enter the names of Nasrani Notables only in the article “List of Syrian Malabar Nasranis” and remove their names and photographs from other related articles. It is also better not to give more importance to one person than the others. I suggest that the photographs may be put closer to their names instead of putting on the top. Are we not all equal?Neduvelilmathew (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there something wrong?
117.196.133.6 on March 21 @13.33 replaced deleted images on Syrian Malabar Nasrani stating that there is nothing wrong in showing some important people in the main page. I have a few questions. There need an agreement among the editors before before dispute arises, Neduvelilmathew (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Who decides the important people among Syrian Malabar Nasrani?
 * 2) About 100 important people are in the List of Syrian Malabar Nasranis. Are we expected to show all their photos on the main page, Syrian Malabar Nasrani?

Dear Mr.Neduvelil Mathew, IMHO images should be allowed as that makes the article more presentable. You may have already seen that many of the personalities mentioned here are un sourced they do not even have articles on them leave alone images and many those who have articles on them do not have their own picture hence i feel it is acceptable to have few images that are available on the main page not because the persons whose images are shown are more important but just because their images are available.Off course its just a suggestion. Peace! Devasuran (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No merger
The persons mentioned under the title List of Syrian Malabar Nasranis are largely Syrian Christians belonging to other denominations of Syrian Christianity. In addition there is a section titled Mar Thomas which is not acceptable. If that is the case we need a separate section for late Archbishops too. I am sure the Jacobites will want something similar. This article contains the list of prominent Syrian Catholics who were in full communion with the Church of Rome. Like someone already pointed out there is an increased tendency to include random individuals in the list. Living Personalities should not be included in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devasuran (talk • contribs) 04:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above suggestion. There is a section titled Mar Thomas. Most probably this is about Mar Thoma people, if so, then the list given is wrong. In fact it is an unnecessary addition. Action:- Removed.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What is with so many Polachirakal
I am appalled by the sight of so many entries with Polachirakal name. The designations these people they hold may be very important but IMHO does not deserve to be here. If we start to include the names of the chairman of every muncipality or presidents of every panchayat the list is going to be endless. I am removing these names. Devasuran (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

69,181,247,146, Chalakuzhy

 * 1) Please do not remove photographs without discussions, especially if they were included by some one else. Be courteous.
 * 2) This article is only a list and if you want to write more about the person, please write an article. Please note that an article on Chalakuzhy Paulose Mathen already exists in Wikipedia.
 * 3) All the names that appear on this page are that of important people. So please keep it in alphabetical order. Action: Reverted.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Anna chandy judge.jpg Nominated for Deletion
= Saint Thomas Christian as ethnic group not a religion=

Wikipedia editors are mistaken to consider Saint Thomas Christians as people who believe in a particular religion. This is not true. Saint Thomas Christians is an ethnic/caste group that traditionally followed one of several varieties of Christianity. Just as Ashkenazy Jews may not necessarily believe in Judaism, and a large number are atheists, a large number STC may not believe in Christianity. However they are still socially classified as Saint Thomas Christians and have historically been given caste privileges regardless of belief. Therefore the requirement that people listed must self-identify as Christian is unfounded. A.K. Antony, E Sudarshan, etc., are part of this ethnic group despite their religious beliefs. Josslined (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No. As with caste, unless we have sources showing that they have self-identified (if living) then we err on the side of caution. "Ethnic group" is a woolly term. - Sitush (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Calling it a "woolly term" doesn't make it so, particularly when "Ethnic group" is a clearly defined sociological [| term]. Saying one isn't a STC because one is an atheist is to erase social and ethnic identity. Similar articles for other ethnic groups articles on wikipedia that do follow Sitush's arbitrary criteria (see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_Ashkenazi_Jews). I believe a second opinion on this topic is required. Josslined (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Or you could just read WP:BLP and WP:V. That other articles may not comply with our policies is not a reason for this one to do the same. I don't appreciate your fake edit summaries, by the way, such as . - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those articles support the criteria you have created that a person can only be a STC if and only they state they believe in current tenents of Christianity, nor the assertion that ethnicity is not a valid concept for classification of people. You have hence again failed to engaged in a proper discussion.

I appreciate, you may believe your experience as a senior editor makes you believe you are above discussion, and so far instead of a sincere attempt at engaging in a discussion, you have instead resolved to personal attacks, (and, if I may, a condescending tone).

(My edit summaries are not fake- Sitush has neither engaged in sincere discussion and has removed persons from the list on the account of their stated religious beliefs).

I hence believe a neutral third party opinion is the only way to resolve this dispute.

Josslined (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

= Request for Third Party Resolution= I have tried to engage in a discussion with Sitush, with no avail (See above section).

I would like to request 3rd party to rule on the following points:

'1. Persons that are of Syrian Christian or STC descent are to be included in the the list, despite religious belief

'2. The text of the article should make it clear that the article include people who descend from the STC ethnic group, regardless of belief.

I am of course happy for standard criteria for referencing is used.

Reasons for the above

1. Saint Thomas Christianity is a generally endogamous group, with shared culture and identity, and satisfy the criteria for an ethnic group:   I appreciate Sitush claims ethnicity is not a a valid classification of people, or as he says it is a 'woolly term'. This is however false, since ethnicity is a standard sociological classification. Further, membership of the community is used for legal purposes (inheritance law, etc), regardless of belief. I believe this is rather obvious prima facie ( a bit like 2+2=2), and don't wish to elaborate further, unless required. 2. Members of Saint Thomas Christianity don't uniformly subscribe to the same set of religious beliefs currently or historically. Including only persons that members to self state that they subscribe to commonly accepted modern Christian dogma is an erasure of their ethnic identity. Also, I would like to request I don't wish to engage further with Sitush, since I don't feel comfortable being subject to his personal attacks and veiled threats (posting on my talk page about discretionary sanctions on articles regarding the Indian subcontinent- I love how wikipedia thinks all articles regarding 1/5th of the world's population, broadly interpreted, should be subject to discretionary sanctions- what a colonial hangover ).

Josslined (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

3O Response: Hello! The issue at hand: considers that St. Thomas Christians are an ethnic group; thus, they do not necessarily all have to be Christians in order to belong to the St. Thomas Christians ethnicity. disagrees and considers that religion is a key aspect of this group. After reading the article on Saint Thomas Christians and conducting a Google Books search on the matter, I find no evidence to support the premises presented by Josslined. According to Wikipedia's article on the topic, "Thomas Christians represent a multi ethnic group", meaning that they are not a single ethnicity. Therefore, I recommend to please remember that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, and that Wikipedians shouldn't engage in original research; information in Wikipedia should be generally backed by reliable sources. Thank you for requesting a third opinion; have a great 2017!-- MarshalN20  ✉🕊 22:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC) @ MarshalN20  ✉🕊

Thanks for looking into this matter. Here is my response:

1. MarshalN20  ✉🕊 claims that the wikipedia article on STC claims that STC is a multi-ethnic group, and therefore isn't a single ethnic group. This statement in the main article is unsupported, and is actually patently misleading if not false. STC can only be considered a multi-ethnic group in the same way Anglo-Saxons are a multi-ethnic group, i.e. from the mixing of Angles and Saxons. The community has been homogeneous for centuries, and its tradition have only mentioned waves of migrants that joined the community over a 1000 years ago.

2. The third party reviewer says having read about the community says they can find no evidence that STC is a single "ethnic group". While I am more than happy to supply evidence on this (there is plenty), I first would like to know what would count as evidence.

3. The reviewer by default has accepted Sitush's position, despite there being no evidence cited, that one is only a Saint Thomas Christian if they personally believe in Christianity (there is no evidence in the article, nor has the 3rd party reviewer described any efforts to find any). Why is that the default position?Josslined (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

While I await MarshalN20  ✉🕊, to state what would count as evidence to show STC is an ethnic group not a religion, I would point out Ethnoreligious group page, which states: "An ethnoreligious group (or ethno-religious group) is an ethnic group whose members are also unified by a common religious background. Ethnoreligious communities define their ethnic identity neither by ancestral heritage nor simply by religious affiliation but often through a combination of both."

The article goes on to state the STC is primarily a single ethnicity:

"Religious groups whose members primarily share a single ethnicity, such as the Sikh, the Saint Thomas Christians, the Shabaks, the Alawites, the Kaka'i, the Mennonites, the Hutterites and the Amish people"

Josslined (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * So you have got the neutral third party opinion that you said would resolve the dispute but because that opinion does not accord with your own you don't accept it?That's typical for Wikipedia's caste articles but bizarre nonetheless. Forget for a moment what might be said at any other WP article - WP itself is not a reliable source - and just concentrate on the principles of how we treat matters relating to living people. WP:BLP demands that we err on the side of caution when making personal statements about such people. Whether religion or ethnicity, in the melting pot that is our current world, a claim to STC status is inherently up to the individual and thus personal. We don't show it unless they claim it. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm frankly surprised that the copy-pasted material from ethnoreligious group has not again clarified the matter. As cited, "whose members are also unified by a common religious background"; thus, the religious importance of the group's identity is again supported by the evidence. Regarding the question on reliable sources, I would recommend for this topic a strong secondary source on the subject of STC. I see a trend in presenting here broad information about ethnic groups, but the conjectures being made are original research. If you would like any further opinions, you can always request an RfC. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 02:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable, discussing this further with you Sitush. I find it saddening that persons with Asian sounding names such as you take on this colonial mindset regarding people editing Asian articles, i.e. the horde of Asian editors need to be reigned with discipline and top down judgments, rather than engaging in discussion like equals. I don't want to discuss with you. I have no regard for you.Thanks for generalising me along with "what is a typical" for caste based articles.

I asked for a third party opinion because I am quite sure you are not open to discussion. The third party said the couldn't find evidence, on what must have been a brief survey of the article and google scholar. I actually have read a lot on this topic, and can easily provide sources. I believe the purpose of third party opinion is to go through the merits of the article, not to ask for a ruling from above (in the dictatorship style of editing that seems to be supported by Sitush).

MarshalN20 ✉, "religous backround" is not the same as religious belief, but growing up or being descended from a community that has been identified on the basis of relgious belief.

It would not be acceptable to say Einstein wasn't an Ashkenanzy Jew because he didn't believe in Judaism (and actually would be considered very offensive). Wikipedia lists him nonetheless (as do many reliable sources): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews

So forgive me if I feel the position adopted currently is offensive.

I can provide sources for STC. But I need to know what exactly the criteria for evidence is. Do you need me to find a sociologist to say STC is an ethnic group? Or do you want me to show articles which basically show STC satisfy sociological definitions of ethnicity? The community is described in historical sources on the basis of ethnic descent- historians don't check what the self-proclaimed belief of individuals are to classify them as STC. I don't understand why the default position is that the person must believe in Christianity?

Further why not just say the article includes people of STC descent, then the criteria will be simpler- just have to give sources that show descent, which is far easier than proving their personal religious beliefs.

Josslined (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Einstein is dead - WP:BLP does not apply to people who are long dead (the clue is in the policy name). I don't know how to make this any more clear to you but Wikipedia has policies and it is expected that contributors follow them. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If you bothered to read the above discussion, you would have realised the point I raised for 3rd party opinion was on whether belief in Christianity was required to be classified as a Saint Thomas Christian. I haven't made any points regarding whether the person is alive or dead. I want this point to be first clarified.Josslined (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

= Proper sourcing =

Please read User:Sitush/Common before adding people to this article. R.C Outlander07@talk 06:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)