# Talk:Saint Thomas Anglicans

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, AnupamTalk 05:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

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, AnupamTalk 07:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

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, AnupamTalk 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)

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
### Review
Well-written:

Verifiable with no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

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

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

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


#### Result
#### 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)