Talk:Paulaseer

Rewrite
I have done a rewrite on this and removed most of the hagiography. It is not a fabulous article, but it is reasonably factual, as far as it goes. Improvements welcome! Brianyoumans (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry
Is it certain that Paulaseer's parents were Jews? According to Michael Bergunder, descending from Nathan (claimed to be the son of David, a claim unique to Lahari) became an important part of Paulaseer's theology. I wonder if he actually descends from Indian Jews, or if this claim is more...conjectural? Elsteve9 (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Lawrie was a Jew. Werner Hoerschelmann discusses the topic in his book, Christian Gurus: A Study on the Work and Life of Christian Charismatic Leaders in South India, p. 246. He compares the assertion (by L.D. Dale, a hagiographic biographer of Lawrie) that Lawrie is descended from Cochin Jews to the theory that Lawrie is simply Indian, from the Nadar caste of Tamils. Hoerschelmann comes down clearly on the side of Lawrie being an Indian, not a (biologically speaking) Jew. His point is that the Cochin Jew theory was put forth by Lawrie at a few points, and then taken up and repeated, for theological reasons.

Unless someone objects, I will edit the article to reflect this debate and conclusion. However, I am not certain of the best way to reflect this. Any input/direction would be much appreciated. Elsteve9 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The section on ancestry was deleted by someone with neither a name, nor a comment explaining the deletion. I'm fairly new to editing wikipedia articles, so I may be a bit weak on standard practice, but it seems prudent to at least leave a reason why the section is deleted. I've reverted it back to the previous state. Perhaps it should be deleted, but some sort of reason should be given why." Elsteve9 (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

yeah, I've looked up Wikipedia's guidelines on discussing controversial religious claims, which are available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion They say, relevantly:
 * In the case of human beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.
 * Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain adherents of this faith (say which) believe X, and also believe that they have always believed X; however, due to the findings (say which) of modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z."

I think this is where I've been trying to take this section. I've sourced the religious believer's claims, and also an academic view. There is probably substantial room for improvement, but it seems to me that progress could be better made by editing than deletion. I'm certainly open to correction and input, but at the moment, this is my view, at least. Elsteve9 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This section was deleted again by who seems to be the original author of this page. I suspect it has been removed because it is damaging to Mr. Lawrie's religious claims, as this user is clearly a follower of Mr. Lawrie's. I'm not sure what to do about this, except flag the article? Elsteve9 (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This section has been deleted at least four times in the last month, never with any explanation. I've never done this before, so I'll have to figure out how to do it, but I'm going to flag this article. If someone objects, speak soon! 65.118.138.127 (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this problem has gotten serious enough to merit arbitration or administrator attention yet. I put a message on the talk page of the user who has done the deletions asking that they discuss things here, maybe they will. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll happily defer to your wisdom/experience! Elsteve9 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions
The section labelled "The Greatest Incident of the First Moon Landing Day" is written from the perspective of a believer in these particular supernatural events. It should be rewritten to 1) include sources, 2) be more objective, and 3)be more detailed. As it stands right now, it is a statement of personal belief, but not a very effective encyclopedia article. Elsteve9 (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Stephen

Please read the research book by Robert Hardgrave of England 'The Nadars of Tamilnadu' to clarify your doubts about the presence of Jews as Nadars in Tamilnadu.- Dayavu Chittranjan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.1.65 (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)