Talk:Synod of Diamper

Changes done
I have made a number of changes in the article.It was not giving any specific information earlier and the statements which were wrong did not have any citations. I Organized it and added reference for the citation. Please discuss to further improve this,

1 Back Ground 2 Decrees of the Syond 3 Changes in Liturgy 4 Changes in Administration 5 Destruction of Syriac Books. 6 Invalidity of the Syond 7 Aftermath 8 See also 9 References 9.1 Books ( Studies on Syond of Diamper) 10 External links Pamparam (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a detailed description of the prohibited book and why they were prohibited. So you can now safely remove the list from section "estruction of Syriac Books" -17:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KondottySultan (talk • contribs)

Still needs a lot more work
I have done quite a bit of cleaning up on grammar, yet I believe that there are a few errors that need to be fixed. Hopefully, it conforms to the Wikipedia standards.

Toohak113 (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Me too. The sentence construction and spelling are now improved, but fuller explanations of the technical terms used would be helpful.Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Synod of Diamper
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Synod of Diamper's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "thehindu.com": From St. Teresa's College:  From Abraham of Angamaly:  From Kerala:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Books
The list of books prohibited by the Synod appear on both the documents of that synod and in later histories of the topic. A note in one of the prefacing references acknowledged the extensive character of these lists in other sources. However, as part of this Wikipedia page, the sources seem disinterested in discussing them in a way that makes detailed inclusion of their contents appropriate for this article. Perhaps a WP:SPINOUT for all the books collectively or some of them individually might be considered, but even on pages explicitly about banned texts, this amount of detail is not generally provided. As such, I am removing this incredibly over-sized portion of the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Activism in Wikipedia as a Serious Issue to Scholarly Neutrality
The sourced quotation I added on Nestorian Aniconism/Iconoclasm was undone by a self-declared Catholic in a situation where the omission of the primary source benefits his narrative. Someone's religion is not an excuse for giving biased reviews on objective research and information, and Wikipedia's problem with Catholic activism is rather well-known (unsourced, unreliable sources, misleading sourcing for keeping fake information that just exists in Catholic blogs, etc).

The decree: Whereas almost all the churches of this Diocese are without pictures, which was the effect of their being Nestorian Hereticks, who do not allow of the healthful use of Sacred Images; therefore the Synod doth command, That in Churches that are finished, the first work that shall be done after that of the Baptismal Font out of the Alms of the Parish, shall be to set up some images, according to the direction of the Prelate, who shall always be consulted about every picture; and after that of High Altar is once set up, if the Church has any Side-Altars, they shall also have images set up in them, and on every Altar besides an Image, there shall be a Cross or some matter or other set up (29th Decree)

The said primary source is literally the Acts of the Council, of which most Catholics and Orthodox for some reason have no interest in making known (it's not mentioned even in Catholic scholarly works about this very subject). The removal was made under "good faith" issues, but the sourcing says it's decree and the edition of the primary source, easily verified through basic research.

If 17th century Roman Catholic Portuguese clergymen expressly affirms the churches in India were aniconic because of their Nestorian faith and that icon worship was to be promoted henceforth, that information is not to be hidden from the public; the term "image worship" has scholarly acceptance and it's used by nearly all primary sources I'm quite sure our friend didn't read (Adrian's Answer, Lateran/Roman Synod of 769, Nicea's Latin acta, etc; check Roman Catholic Historian Thomas F. Noble's magnum opus for extra). Like it or not, modern Catholic sensibilities are irrelevant to scientific research, and I highly advise the readers to check Dr. Juan Signes de Codoñer, my tutor, in his peer-reviewed article for confirmation of the therm in the area.

Of course the fact the council admits there's a real link between Nestorianism and Aniconism hurts the current agenda of whitewashing Nestorian history to make it more Catholic/Orthodox than Protestant, exclusively for crypto-apologetic purposes, but it's a primary source and it may not be dismissed under these accusations. If the original source itself denies the revisionistic approach, then the later should be moved out: and let's be clear, it's known in the area that 16th-century Portuguese sources DO speak extensively of Nestorian churches aniconism in India. Again, why it's not in the text? Poor edition or bias?

But this is just one of many instances where Wikipedia is being controlled by religious fanatics. My first changes in Wiki were made BECAUSE of Catholic or anti-Protestant bias: articles on Malleus Maleficarum, Kramer and such had unsourced, misleading and wrong information like saying the Papacy put Malleus in the Index immediately after it was published, the book was printed in 1480/90's, the Index was created in later 16th century. Acceptable? This information just exists in Catholic blogs, which also doesn't quote sources.

I do plan to edit the articles that misleading accuse current Nestorian aniconism to Islamic influence (literally no evidence for that, just accept it's true) quoting primary sources but STILL keeping the recent scholarly dissent to the thesis so unlearned readers get access to full information.

Sincerely, Pedro Paulo França de Sousa Gaião e Silva Pedrogaiao (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Accusations based entirely off the identity of an editor are typically a violation of our policy WP:UNCIVIL. As for your sourcing, Wikipedia has a policy explaining why we generally avoid primary sources (WP:PRIMARY). If you want to insert information you know to be true, you seem aware of avenues to find that information in reliable secondary sources. A clear explanation of what Wikipedia considers those to be can be found at WP:RS (the JSTOR article you linked is a fine example). I'm fairly certain the facts you describe are supported by reliable sources, so finding and citing them in the article is all you need to do. Again, accusations of prejudicial bias need to be similarly substantiated, otherwise they can actually result in penalties against your account. Let me know if you need help finding sources, as I have access to the Wikipedia Library and possess a sizable collection of books on Eastern/Indian Christianity. If you need help writing about or formatting information you find, a message on this page automatically notifies me. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify something you seemed a tad confused about, the notification of a reversion of a "good-faith edit" means your edits were considered done with good intentions, but may have fallen short of other standards or had certain inadequacies. More about what that means is found in perhaps our most important policy, WP:AGF. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I will moderate my tone given the civility of the discussion, but I don't think the source could be justifibly omitted except if the reason relates to its size. This and other canons, in particular, are often overlooked in the whole discussion of the origins of Nestorian Aniconism and the surviving evidence for later periods (the only free acess version is the Portuguese one, too), so the references for it would be only passing ones (reason why I actually work on peer-reviewed research on that, as few actually have), as the canons literally speak for themselves (what I got from the avoidance of primary sources generally relates to their own possible biases).
 * And while the unsubstantiated accusations might have regrettably be unsuited, I still keep the problematic of activism happening in some pages; see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Kramer&diff=900777780&oldid=872198692 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Church_of_the_East
 * Pedrogaiao (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you would benefit from adopting a "x is incorrect, y source says this" approach. Much of what you've posted here and on Talk:Church of the East gets lost in accusations, vague dissatisfactions, and claims of falsities without explicit evidence. On this article, I would encourage you to first assemble the sources necessary to make your point then explicitly cite/quote them when making said points, either in the article itself or on a talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)