Talk:Saint Thomas Anglicans

Untitled

The Church of South India is not just an Anglican Church; it is a united Protestant Church, being the result of a merger between Anglicans, Methodists, and Reformed Christians. This article has been retitled accordingly. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Page title

If this article is about Saint Thomas Christians who belong to the Church of South India, then "Saint Thomas Protestants" or "Saint Thomas Protestant Christians" is the appropriate page title. As I have pointed out above, the Church of South India is not just an Anglican Church; it is a united Protestant Church, being the result of a merger between Anglicans, Methodists, and Reformed Christians. It is for this reason that I have boldly moved the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Article will also be restored to its prior state, as there has been no consensus demonstrated for a change in scope  — Amakuru (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Saint Thomas Anglicans → Saint Thomas Protestants – Should this article be retitled Saint Thomas Protestants as the Church of South India is a united Protestant Church made up of Anglicans, Methodists, and Reformed Christians, not just Anglican Christians? Anupam^Talk 08:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support: If this article is about Saint Thomas Christians who belong to the Church of South India, then "Saint Thomas Protestants" is the appropriate page title. As I have pointed out above, the Church of South India is not just an Anglican Church; it is a united Protestant Church, being the result of a merger between Anglicans, Methodists, and Reformed Christians. Additionally, from what I can see, the term "Saint Thomas Anglicans" does not find any mention in the references used in this article; it is probably for that reason that an AfD was filed for this article before. Anupam^Talk 07:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The CSI is not made up of Anglicans only, but other Protestants too. It's thus unfair to just state that CSI members are Anglicans when they come from a variety of Protestant mission backgrounds. Orientls (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Article is not about the Church of South India. It is about the historic development of a subset of Saint Thomas Christians who embraced Anglicanism in 1836 and acceded to the CSI in 1947. The title should reflect what sources call this ethno-religious group.--Tharian7 (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is not an RfC matter, please use the WP:RM process. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: As this article was significantly altered prior to this discussion, I request all editors to check this long-standing version, before the editing dispute started. The text that was specifically Anglican has been removed or replaced with generic Protestant, in this article and some others which mentions the Anglican Syrian community. These changes however are nonfactual and unsourced. This article is not about the Church of South India, which was formed in 1947. It is about a Saint Thomas Christian minority who joined the Anglican church in 1836. The article narrates their origins in the Saint Thomas Christian community of Malankara and eventual development as a distinct group among Thomas Christians as well as Anglicans. The present title is best suited for the article content. Frykenberg 2017, p. 303 calls them Anglican Thomas Christians. The Encyclopedia of Christianity in page 687 calls Saint Thomas Anglicans within the CSI as Anglican Syrians. Another Oxford reference work covering Indian Christianity as a whole, in reference to CSI Syrians says ‘Anglican’ Thomas Christians are in the Church of South India (p.249). Others call them "Syrian Anglicans", Anglican Syrian Christians etc, with quotation marks in some cases. This fact has been pointed out by Wikipedia administrator Uncle G in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Thomas Anglicans. By 1879, this community became part of the Anglican diocese of Travancore and Cochin, which after Indian independence in 1947, became the Madhya Kerala Diocese of the CSI. In fact they represented the Anglican party to the pre-union negotiations. After the union, they came to be known as CSI Syrian Christians as well. Post-merger, the former Anglican dioceses continued under the same old episcopal ordained bishops and clergy. The CSI is a full member of the Anglican Communion and the South Indian province of the Anglican communion. Its supreme head is an Anglican prelate as well. As this page is about an ethno-religious community and not about any church or doctrines, the title should reflect what the sources call this community. Please bear in mind that almost all the resources cited above, came from the most prominent publishers, after the formation of the Church of South India. Regardless, they refer to this community as Anglican Syrian Christians because they belong to the Anglican slice of the CSI.--Tharian7 (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The Church of South India, as a united Protestant Church, is a province of the Anglican Communion, but it is also a member of the World Methodist Council and World Communion of Reformed Churches. Its supreme head is not solely an Anglican prelate, but the head of the Church of South India, a united Protestant Church. Anupam^Talk 18:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is not about the Church of South India, but about an ethno-religious community called Saint Thomas Anglicans. The article title should reflect what sources call this group. If anyone disputes the peculiarities of CSI, that should be discussed in the CSI talk page. But as circumstances necessitate to be part of this conversation, the nature of CSI has been explained with sources in the section below, which has been unnecessarily created for it. Sources prove that the CSI is a United Anglican Church, as the union was based on the Anglican defined Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and adoption of episcopacy within the historic episcopate from the Anglican church. The CSI from the very beginning met the minimum requirements for an Anglican church. That is why Anglican dioceses were given permission to be part of it, a decision which involved Anglican Syrian Christians. In 1972, the CSI became a full-fledged member of the Anglican Communion with representation in the Lambeth Conferences and the Anglican Consultative Council. CSI leadership like all other churches of the Anglican communion, acknowledges the symbolic spiritual headship of the Archbishop of Canterbury over them, even while being in communion with WMC and WCRC. The moderator of the CSI is definitely an Anglican prelate equal to all other Anglican prelates worldwide. Above all, Anglican Syrian Christians did not cease to be Anglicans after the union.--Tharian7 (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The Church of South India itself does not use the characterization that you describe, but uses the one that the reliable source I have offered uses; in its "About Us" section, the Church of South India says: "Being the largest Protestant church in India, the CSI celebrates her life with Indian culture and spirituality and she also raises her voice for the voiceless on matters of justice, peace and integrity of creation." It also states: "Episcopacy is thus combined with Synodical government, and the church explicitly recognizes that Episcopal, Presbyterian, and congregational elements are all necessary for the church's life." For you to claim that the CSI as a solely Anglican Church is biased and inaccurate, especially when the denomination makes no such claim and instead states that it is a "united and uniting church". Additionally, other reliable sources specifically use the term "Syrian Protestants" to describe this community, relating it to their membership in the Church of South India; "The Indian Family in Transition", authored by George Kurian and published by Mouton, states:

Endogamy is also practised by the Syrian Protestants. They are now united into one church called the Church of South India, which comprises also all Protestant groups converted by European missionaries.

I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not my characterization, but that's how various encyclopaedias describe the Church of South India. This has been explained in detail in the section below, which you created. The Encyclopedia of Christianity in page 687 specifically calls Saint Thomas Anglicans within the CSI as Anglican Syrians and in page 688 says this about the CSI; This church was considered a model for church union movements around the world, especially in its adoption of Anglican doctrine of episcopal succession, which it reconciled with the views of other denominations. The Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices in page 707 explains how Anglicans became the dominant body in the pre-union negotiations which accepted the Anglican defined Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. It says, The basis of the union was the Lambeth Quadrilateral, the historic statement of the bases of Anglican belief, which includes acknowledgement of the ancient Christian creeds. The Encyclopedia of Protestantism in pages 28 and 29 says, Among the more interesting churches are the Church of South India and the Church of North India, both products of a merger of several Protestant churches, but still able to meet the minimal requirements to be considered Anglican. The CSI is not like any united church, it is a United Anglican Church with Methodist and Calvinist elements. In reality, that does not make the CSI markedly different from other Anglican churches, as the broader Anglican movement including the Church of England was always Calvinist reformed to a limited extent and Methodism emerged from Anglicanism. This article has never denied the fact that the CSI is a united church. The union is clearly explained in the section dedicated to the formation of the CSI, with many sources and special emphasis on this community's role it. For any additional details about the CSI, links are already provided to the Origin, Formation and Ecumenical relations sections of the Church of South India article. While we stray into all these, lets not forget that this article is not about the CSI. It is about a minority of Saint Thomas Christians who became Anglican in the 19th century and continued so, even after acceding to the CSI. So, the article's title should reflect what reliable sources call this community.--Tharian7 (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The scope of this article was and should remain the Anglican members of CSI and their history and traditions. The undiscussed changes to the article which broadened its scope have no hope of consensus support and should be reverted. Andrewa (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Description of the Church of South India

User:Tharian7 recently removed a reference from the article that characterized the Church of South India as a united Protestant Church and replaced it with the unsourced description of "autonomous South Indian province of the Anglican Communion". While this is partially true, it is not accurate because the Church of South India was created as a united Protestant Church after Anglicans, Methodists and the Reformed merged together in India. The website of the World Methodist Council, of which the Church of South India is a member, thus states:

The Church of South India is a United Church that came into existence on 27th September 1947. The churches that came into the union were the Anglican Church, the Methodist Church, and the South India United Church (which was a union in 1904 of the Presbyterian and Congregational Churches). Later the Basel Mission Churches in South India also joined the Union. The Church of South India is the first example in church history of the union of Episcopal and non-Episcopal churches, and is thus one of the early pioneers of the ecumenical movement. ... The CSI strives to maintain fellowship with all those branches of the church which the uniting churches enjoyed fellowship before the union. We are members of the World Methodist Council, the Anglican Consultative Council, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, the Council for World Mission, and the Association of Missions and Churches in South West Germany.

In light of this fact, the sourced description should not be changed without consensus. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Response: First and foremost, we should not loose sight of the fact that this article is not about the Church of South India, but about a Saint Thomas Christian minority who embraced Anglicanism in the 19th century. The article begins with the legendary mission of St. Thomas to India, through the origins of this small community, to their present state as members of the Church of South India. For any additional details about the CSI, links are already provided to the Origin, Formation and Ecumenical relations sections of the Church of South India article, in the appropriate places. Those links for more information have been there since the creation of this article. The formation of the CSI is also been neatly explained with sources with particular emphasis on this community's role in it. Considering the community's history and due to the fact that they constitute the Anglican slice of the CSI, mentioning the union in the introduction causes unnecessary clutter and prevents the article from providing a coherent narrative.

A discussion about the nature of the CSI is not within the scope of this article. But as circumstances necessitate it, I'll explain. There are enough and more sources in the article about that, as for the rest of its content. As Anglicanism itself is a reformed tradition, except for the continuity of apostolic succession within the historic episcopate which Anglicans insisted upon, there weren't any serious challenges. The union was strictly based on the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral laid down by Anglicans. The article neatly explains how the merger was realised by incorporating all uniting denominations into the Anglican fold, by way of Anglican bishops ordaining all chosen candidates from non-episcopal traditions to bishoprics, on the condition that all future ordinations would be exclusively episcopal. Thus the continuity of the united church within the historic episcopate was ensured. Minimal changes to liturgy was also made so that it would be acceptable to everyone. The sources make it clear that the CSI, right from the very beginning fulfilled all the minimal requirements of an Anglican church. A period of 30 years was allowed to achieve a natural organic union. The pre-union Anglican dioceses were always under the old Anglican bishops and clergy and the new church was free to commune with larger communions of its constituents. The only Anglican condition was that no further unions must be carried out at the expense of episcopacy or violation of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. In 1972, the Anglican Communion assessed the CSI and concluded that the problem of non-ordained pre-union ministers has been balanced by new ministers ordained by post -union episcopal bishops. The CSI leadership unanimously recognised the symbolic headship of the Archbishop of Canterbury over them and since then has been a full fledged member of the Anglican communion. So the CSI is not just like any other united church, it is a United Anglican Church. Saint Thomas Anglicans did not cease to be Anglicans after the union. So the tile should not be changed.

The Encyclopedia of Christianity in page 687 specifically calls Saint Thomas Anglicans within the CSI as Anglican Syrians and in page 688 says this about the CSI; This church was considered a model for church union movements around the world, especially in its adoption of Anglican doctrine of episcopal succession, which it reconciled with the views of other denominations.

The Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices in page 707 explains how Anglicans became the dominant body in the pre-union negotiations which accepted the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. It says, The basis of the union was the Lambeth Quadrilateral, the historic statement of the bases of Anglican belief, which includes acknowledgement of the ancient Christian creeds. The CSI is a united Anglican church.

The Encyclopedia of Protestantism in pages 28 and 29 says, Among the more interesting churches are the Church of South India and the Church of North India, both products of a merger of several Protestant churches, but still able to meet the minimal requirements to be considered Anglican. The CSI is a united Anglican church.

The World Methodist Council source added by editor Anupam does not say a word about Anglican Syrian Christians and hence not very suitable for this article. Despite, me asking to achieve a page move and associated content addition through a formal move request from the very beginning, this user revered my edits twice. Now that user Redrose64 initiated the correct process, I dont wish talk anymore about all that.--Tharian7 (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saint Thomas Anglicans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: StraussInTheHouse (talk · contribs) 12:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Starting review, reading and making notes now. SITH (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	14:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC): well-written.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	14:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC): personally, I think the sidebars stretch a bit too far down, especially considering the length of the article. It also causes formatting issues for floating images. However, as there isn't a footer version of the sidebars and they're all relevant, I don't see much that can be done about it other than creating the footer templates as an alternative. Although not required per MOS:ORDER, a {{shortdesc}} would be beneficial. MOS:SO and MOS:BODY might be better satisfied with the amalgamation of sections 1 to 4 in a "History" section with subsections, but that is more subjective. 16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC): compelling reasoning given for current structure, not all articles are the same. With regards to sidebar layouts, it is a personal preference and I'd be more than happy to assist future {{navbar}} development for the sidebars if considered approriate. Passing 1b.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): WP:INCITE more than adequately satisfied with accepted referencing system.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): some of the sources after number 39 could do with a bit more independence but because of the numerous inline citations it doesn't cause a verifiability problem.	Pass
(c) (original research)	14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): no issues.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): not enough to be a copyvio but the last paragraph of "British Period" is a bit too close to existing material. 16:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC): addressed and re-worded, passing 2d.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): four of the five body sections are essentially dedicated to the development of the congregation over time (see 1b). Have the philosophical beliefs unique to this particular congregation been fully explored? 16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC): as no reliable sources suggest the congregation has significant philosophical or theological differences from other congregations, its inclusion as a major aspect isn't warranted and therefore all major aspects of coverage are met. Passing 3a.	Pass
(b) (focused)	14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): nothing out of scope.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): no issues.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
12:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC): no maintenance tags or RMs since August.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	12:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC): the two non-gallery images as items already in the public domain should be tagged with {{PD-old}} as opposed to {{PD-self}}. 16:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC): per update, all tags present and correct here and on Commons. Passing 6a.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	12:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC): I think the gallery adds to the article, so no WP:IG concerns. After all Help:Pictures#Galleries exists for a reason.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC): promising start, slight room for improvement, after which promotion is warranted. 16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC): all queries and issues answered and addressed. Promoting to GA.

Discussion

• Hi Tharian7, thank you for your nomination, I've reviewed it and as per the above placed it on hold. Please feel free to ping me back to this page when any outstanding aspects have been addressed or if you have any queries. Thanks, SITH (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi User:StraussInTheHouse, thanks for taking up this task. I shall address the outstanding points, one after the other and ping you, upon completion. Best, Tharian7 (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @StraussInTheHouse:, could you please review the article? I have added shortdesc, converted ref 39 to sfn-harvid style as it was re-used, and also replaced subsequent sources to ensure independence. I re-wrote the last paragraph of the British Period, to address any apparent similarity to existing material. I believe the non-gallery images are appropriately tagged now.
  • With respect to the subjective feedback on item 1(b): As this is a short article with only 5 body sections, I personally feel it is best presented in it's current form, if that is permissible. If we amalgamate the first 4 sections, the article will be reduced to just 2 sections, on the whole. Even so, I shall integrate, if we don't have the leeway to retain the current Section Organization. Please let me know.
  • The only action item that is posing a challenge is 3(a). I couldn't find any acceptable sources, online or in print, that significantly covers the philosophical beliefs and cultural values of this specific minority group, so as to make any meaningful additions. So it seems to me, that the only reasonable plan of action, is to develop this article to include those aspects, when sources are at hand. Or I can look again closely into the sources already referenced in the article, and incorporate whatever bits and pieces of relevant information I might find in this regard, to the appropriate existing sections in the article. Do you have any recommendations? Tharian7 (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Tharian7, thank you for the amendments you've made and responses above. I have completed the review process and, in accordance with its findings, I am in process of listing the article as a good article. Congratulations! With regard to my suggestions on the philosophical or theological differences, see the above: if reliable sources don't cover them, then all of the major verifiable aspects have been covered. My reasoning for enquiring was because as a philosophy and theology article, this nomination was one of particular interest to me as it is an area in which I am reasonably well-versed, so should any reliable sources come up regarding such uniquenesses in this congregation and you'd like a second opinion on the sources, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'd be more than happy to take a look. Again, thank you for your nomination and congratulations on its success. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)