![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
@ Sathymeva Jayathe: your edits are unsourced and poor. Hence it will be removed. If you are trying to contribute to the article, please discuss here. Br Ibrahim john ( talk) 11:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
There are more than a couple sources presented that support the establishment of the church in 1912. Jude Didimus wishes to remove the sources because the article previously did not include that information, which is not a reason to exclude sources. The material cited is found here and here. Also, Jude Didimus has violated the 3RR (again). Unless they can substantiate rationale to excluded repeatedly cited material, I'll reinsert it tomorrow. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 05:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Still it does not explicitly say that the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church was established in 1912. If your version were true, there would have been explicit support from sources. The quotes given above imply that the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch tried to bring the church under his authority but Vattasseril Dionysius did not let it materialise. The sources also clearly say that the church was not under the Patriarch prior to 1912. Jude Didimus ( talk) 05:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Some sources do sometimes say that the supreme spiritual leader was the Patriarch. However even those sources clearly distinguish the Malankara Church from the Syriac Orthodox Church. They also makes it clear that the Patriarch had no temporal authority over the church. The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church still has the Patriarch as the supreme spiritual leader as per the first clause of it constitution. All orthodox churches are like that. The supreme spiritual leader of Eastern Orthodoxy is the Patriarch of Constantinople but he has no temporal authority outside his own patriarchate. Jude Didimus ( talk) 05:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Br. Ibrahim actually argues the contrary. See above section. Jude Didimus ( talk) 05:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Unless and until you are able to provide a source that explicitly say that church was founded in 1912 and the founder is Vattasseril Dionysius, the article will probably continue its consistent and present version. Jude Didimus ( talk) 06:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
What you are arguing is WP:OR. Architect is not a synonymn of founder. The source says so because the Catholicate of the East was established in 1912. That is, a new title was added to the Malankara Metropolitan in 1912. That does not mean an establishment of the church. Jude Didimus ( talk) 06:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Multiple sources say that Pope Gregory I was the architect of the Roman Catholic Church. Do you, being a Catholic propagandist, believe that he is the founder? There is no citations provided here that explicitly say that Vattasseril Dionysius was the founder of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian church or the church was founded in 1912. WP:OR is unacceptable here. Jude Didimus ( talk) 06:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
If you are not a propagandist, then why are you raising a pov original research here. First provide a source that explicitly say that Vattasseril Dionysius was the founder and the church was established in 1912. Jude Didimus ( talk) 06:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
If you are not a propagandist, then why are you raising a pov original research here. First provide a source that explicitly say that Vattasseril Dionysius was the founder and the church was established in 1912 Jude Didimus ( talk) 06:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
This is still a content dispute and since I wish to maintain it so, I retract that allegation. You 'may' not be a propagandist but you surely have no regard for WP:RS and you are currently advocating your original research and pov here Jude Didimus ( talk) 06:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
If you are adding content, you must make sure that it is explicitly backed by reliable sources. Otherwise, it is considered original research. Here, you must provide a reliable source saying that the church was established in 1912 and it was founded by Vattasseril Dionysius. Otherwise your content is original research. Jude Didimus ( talk) 06:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
That is where you must draw the line between reliably sourced content and original research. You have to provide sources that give the founder and establishment details of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church to add that content. The source must support the content explicitly and not simply implicitly. A church becoming independent and a new title getting introduced is different from establishment/foundation of the church. Jude Didimus ( talk) 07:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Let me also make it clear that if you are able to provide reliable sources that explicitly say that the church was established in 1912 and the founder is Vattasseril Dionysius, you are welcome to add that content. Jude Didimus ( talk) 07:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
That is what that is called original research. You are simply misinterpreting the source. You can use that source but only to add what it explicitly say, i.e, the church entered a new phase etc. Jude Didimus ( talk) 07:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Establishment of church and autocephaly are completely different. Jude Didimus ( talk) 07:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Zoticus777: Thanks for opening discussion here. The source in question as describes him as liberating the church from a "foreign church". Since he was a foundational leader in the church’s autocephality and independent governance under that new constitution, I’d say having him as "founder" is a good take. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Zoticus777: For the last time: you can not dismiss sources out of hand. You deleted a sourced paragraph (one further attested to in this source dating to 1909!). You have falsely accused me of vandalizing the page when confronted about your unusual editing habits. You went to an admin because you want your POV to be represented on the page. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 13:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Zoticus777: Below, I will demonstrate to you that my edits are sourced, performed in good faith, and are superior to the unsourced statements you provide. While you might disagree with the content of these sources, you are obliged to either challenge them with sources of your own, challenge the legitimacy of the sources themselves, or accept the sources as reliable and suitable for inclusion in the article.
While details on the history of the MOSC are scant, these facts are among the best attested. We know that not the whole of the Oriental Orthodox communion recognizes the authority that the MOSC claims, that the church was established sometime between 1909 and 1912, and that the individuals who founded the MOSC were Dionysius, Ignatius Abded Mshiho II, and arguably Baselios Paulose I. This does not mean that the MOSC's assertions of communion are errant, at least not from an Oriental Orthodox point of view. However, these claims have to be addressed as such: "claims". Unless reliable evidence can be mustered against inclusion of this material, it will be reinserted with the above sourcing. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 23:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Macinderum: Thanks for this wealth of sources. Mind if I try inserting information front these and ping you or vice versa? Also, on the Fortescue source, I am somewhat hesitant. I know many of his writings were included in the Catholic Encyclopedia and Lesser was reprinted by Gorgias, but I do have minor concerns about his reliability as a source. Won't stand in your way if you insert material from him, though, as he seems well-accepted enough. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Following Jstalins's deletion of sourced content, I think it's important to offer a formal space for discussion of this topic. While an Indian civil court verdict held that due to nuances of the 1970s hierarchal struggle in the Indian Syrian Christian community meant that the MOSC isn't legally recognized as "autocephalous" by the Indian state, multiple reliable sources confirm that the MOSC—a body that extends well beyond India's borders—is described as "autocephalous". A 2020 primer on the MOSC from CNEWA, an independent and reliable source on Eastern Christianity, describes the church is "autocephalous" and that recent court verdicts have actually ended up supporting a description of the MOSC as such. Further reliable secondary sourcing can be mustered should the need for additional clarification arise. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 05:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
It further affirmed that the autocephalous Catholicos has legal standing, no, it doesn't—the Indian state seems to have amended its view regarding the autocephalous character of the MOSC and maintains that it is indeed autocephalous (alongside the Jacobite faction). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 06:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Jstalins: It did. And the courts and reliable sources have reaffirmed that the MOSC is autocephalous—a claim you called a hoax. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 07:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I can't understand the source for you. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 15:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion over at WP:RSN regarding the use of a certain book as a source for the article The Poem of the Man-God. Part of the discussion involves the commendation of the book in question by a Bishop of the (Malankara) Syriac Orthodox Church. Some editors are questioning his existence, thus bringing into question the credibility of the book itself. It seems there is sufficient evidence to show this Bishop is an authentic Bishop of the (Malankara) Syriac Orthodox Church, but some disagree. This is an informal request for comments, since some of you that participate on this talk page may have additional information pertaining to that part of the discussion. For those interested, instead of reading the entire thread, you can begin reading from near the end where I summarize the three remaining issues of contention and arguments, with a paragraph for each. Arkenstrone ( talk) 02:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
148.252.146.158 ( talk) 23:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
It is not an autocepalace church
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
23:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)It is not the objective of a Wikipedia article to decide if the MOSC is autocephalic or not: it is the objective to say what sources say about it. Thus the article could say "most sources indicate that the Church as autocephalic, while some deny it (based on a court decision)". 142.163.195.114 ( talk) 17:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
@ Sathymeva Jayathe: your edits are unsourced and poor. Hence it will be removed. If you are trying to contribute to the article, please discuss here. Br Ibrahim john ( talk) 11:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
There are more than a couple sources presented that support the establishment of the church in 1912. Jude Didimus wishes to remove the sources because the article previously did not include that information, which is not a reason to exclude sources. The material cited is found here and here. Also, Jude Didimus has violated the 3RR (again). Unless they can substantiate rationale to excluded repeatedly cited material, I'll reinsert it tomorrow. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 05:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Still it does not explicitly say that the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church was established in 1912. If your version were true, there would have been explicit support from sources. The quotes given above imply that the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch tried to bring the church under his authority but Vattasseril Dionysius did not let it materialise. The sources also clearly say that the church was not under the Patriarch prior to 1912. Jude Didimus ( talk) 05:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Some sources do sometimes say that the supreme spiritual leader was the Patriarch. However even those sources clearly distinguish the Malankara Church from the Syriac Orthodox Church. They also makes it clear that the Patriarch had no temporal authority over the church. The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church still has the Patriarch as the supreme spiritual leader as per the first clause of it constitution. All orthodox churches are like that. The supreme spiritual leader of Eastern Orthodoxy is the Patriarch of Constantinople but he has no temporal authority outside his own patriarchate. Jude Didimus ( talk) 05:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Br. Ibrahim actually argues the contrary. See above section. Jude Didimus ( talk) 05:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Unless and until you are able to provide a source that explicitly say that church was founded in 1912 and the founder is Vattasseril Dionysius, the article will probably continue its consistent and present version. Jude Didimus ( talk) 06:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
What you are arguing is WP:OR. Architect is not a synonymn of founder. The source says so because the Catholicate of the East was established in 1912. That is, a new title was added to the Malankara Metropolitan in 1912. That does not mean an establishment of the church. Jude Didimus ( talk) 06:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Multiple sources say that Pope Gregory I was the architect of the Roman Catholic Church. Do you, being a Catholic propagandist, believe that he is the founder? There is no citations provided here that explicitly say that Vattasseril Dionysius was the founder of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian church or the church was founded in 1912. WP:OR is unacceptable here. Jude Didimus ( talk) 06:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
If you are not a propagandist, then why are you raising a pov original research here. First provide a source that explicitly say that Vattasseril Dionysius was the founder and the church was established in 1912. Jude Didimus ( talk) 06:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
If you are not a propagandist, then why are you raising a pov original research here. First provide a source that explicitly say that Vattasseril Dionysius was the founder and the church was established in 1912 Jude Didimus ( talk) 06:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
This is still a content dispute and since I wish to maintain it so, I retract that allegation. You 'may' not be a propagandist but you surely have no regard for WP:RS and you are currently advocating your original research and pov here Jude Didimus ( talk) 06:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
If you are adding content, you must make sure that it is explicitly backed by reliable sources. Otherwise, it is considered original research. Here, you must provide a reliable source saying that the church was established in 1912 and it was founded by Vattasseril Dionysius. Otherwise your content is original research. Jude Didimus ( talk) 06:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
That is where you must draw the line between reliably sourced content and original research. You have to provide sources that give the founder and establishment details of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church to add that content. The source must support the content explicitly and not simply implicitly. A church becoming independent and a new title getting introduced is different from establishment/foundation of the church. Jude Didimus ( talk) 07:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Let me also make it clear that if you are able to provide reliable sources that explicitly say that the church was established in 1912 and the founder is Vattasseril Dionysius, you are welcome to add that content. Jude Didimus ( talk) 07:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
That is what that is called original research. You are simply misinterpreting the source. You can use that source but only to add what it explicitly say, i.e, the church entered a new phase etc. Jude Didimus ( talk) 07:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Establishment of church and autocephaly are completely different. Jude Didimus ( talk) 07:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Zoticus777: Thanks for opening discussion here. The source in question as describes him as liberating the church from a "foreign church". Since he was a foundational leader in the church’s autocephality and independent governance under that new constitution, I’d say having him as "founder" is a good take. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Zoticus777: For the last time: you can not dismiss sources out of hand. You deleted a sourced paragraph (one further attested to in this source dating to 1909!). You have falsely accused me of vandalizing the page when confronted about your unusual editing habits. You went to an admin because you want your POV to be represented on the page. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 13:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Zoticus777: Below, I will demonstrate to you that my edits are sourced, performed in good faith, and are superior to the unsourced statements you provide. While you might disagree with the content of these sources, you are obliged to either challenge them with sources of your own, challenge the legitimacy of the sources themselves, or accept the sources as reliable and suitable for inclusion in the article.
While details on the history of the MOSC are scant, these facts are among the best attested. We know that not the whole of the Oriental Orthodox communion recognizes the authority that the MOSC claims, that the church was established sometime between 1909 and 1912, and that the individuals who founded the MOSC were Dionysius, Ignatius Abded Mshiho II, and arguably Baselios Paulose I. This does not mean that the MOSC's assertions of communion are errant, at least not from an Oriental Orthodox point of view. However, these claims have to be addressed as such: "claims". Unless reliable evidence can be mustered against inclusion of this material, it will be reinserted with the above sourcing. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 23:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Macinderum: Thanks for this wealth of sources. Mind if I try inserting information front these and ping you or vice versa? Also, on the Fortescue source, I am somewhat hesitant. I know many of his writings were included in the Catholic Encyclopedia and Lesser was reprinted by Gorgias, but I do have minor concerns about his reliability as a source. Won't stand in your way if you insert material from him, though, as he seems well-accepted enough. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Following Jstalins's deletion of sourced content, I think it's important to offer a formal space for discussion of this topic. While an Indian civil court verdict held that due to nuances of the 1970s hierarchal struggle in the Indian Syrian Christian community meant that the MOSC isn't legally recognized as "autocephalous" by the Indian state, multiple reliable sources confirm that the MOSC—a body that extends well beyond India's borders—is described as "autocephalous". A 2020 primer on the MOSC from CNEWA, an independent and reliable source on Eastern Christianity, describes the church is "autocephalous" and that recent court verdicts have actually ended up supporting a description of the MOSC as such. Further reliable secondary sourcing can be mustered should the need for additional clarification arise. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 05:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
It further affirmed that the autocephalous Catholicos has legal standing, no, it doesn't—the Indian state seems to have amended its view regarding the autocephalous character of the MOSC and maintains that it is indeed autocephalous (alongside the Jacobite faction). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 06:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Jstalins: It did. And the courts and reliable sources have reaffirmed that the MOSC is autocephalous—a claim you called a hoax. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 07:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I can't understand the source for you. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 15:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion over at WP:RSN regarding the use of a certain book as a source for the article The Poem of the Man-God. Part of the discussion involves the commendation of the book in question by a Bishop of the (Malankara) Syriac Orthodox Church. Some editors are questioning his existence, thus bringing into question the credibility of the book itself. It seems there is sufficient evidence to show this Bishop is an authentic Bishop of the (Malankara) Syriac Orthodox Church, but some disagree. This is an informal request for comments, since some of you that participate on this talk page may have additional information pertaining to that part of the discussion. For those interested, instead of reading the entire thread, you can begin reading from near the end where I summarize the three remaining issues of contention and arguments, with a paragraph for each. Arkenstrone ( talk) 02:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
148.252.146.158 ( talk) 23:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
It is not an autocepalace church
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
23:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)It is not the objective of a Wikipedia article to decide if the MOSC is autocephalic or not: it is the objective to say what sources say about it. Thus the article could say "most sources indicate that the Church as autocephalic, while some deny it (based on a court decision)". 142.163.195.114 ( talk) 17:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)