Talk:Coonan Cross Oath

message: Recent spurt of edits from  (more than 100 edits within 5 months!) has severely degraded this article's quality and devalued it to a biased mess prejudiced in favor of the party who opposed the event that is the subject of this article. Until this issue is remedied, please maintain this section to discuss how this can be resolved.Swordofcherubim (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: "On january 1653 priests and people assembled in the church of Our Lady at Mattanceri, and standing in front of a cross and lighted candles swore upon the holy Gospel that they would no longer obey Garcia, and that they would have nothing further to do with the jesuits they would recognise the archdeacon as the governor of their church. This is the famous oath ofthe ‘ Koonen Cross ` (the open-air Cross which stands outside the church at Mattnchery.
The Thomas Christians did not at any point suggest that they wished to separate themselves from the pope. They could no longer tolerate the arrogance of Garcia. And their detestation of the jesuits, to whose overbearing attitude and lack of sympathy they attributed all their troubles,breathes through all the documents ofthe time. But let the pope send them a true bishop not a jesuit, and they will be pleased to receive and obey him."
 |source = A History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to AD 1707 By Stephen Neill page 326-327+Tavancoor State Manual
Better rename it to protestant propaganda oath  
By the Father, Son and Holy Ghost that henceforth we would not adhere to the Franks, nor accept the faith of the Pope of Rome(Ref October 1822, Letter from  Dionysious to the Church Missionary Society.)
its just an attempt to please the protestants (in all most all records  its like they will not acept paulist(Jesuits).and funny thing is that )and funny thing is that the last  East syrian bishops were Catholics (with the faith of rome in your words). If the revolt was actually against the pope then why there is no protest at the time of chaldean catholic church formation in Ad 1550 ?( Bishop Mar Joseph (AD 1555)  was the brother of chaldean catholic patriarch of babylon)From all these its clear that the oath was against Jesuits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.46.146 (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: suggested Revision

message: Coonan Cross Oathcan be merged to Coonen Cross Oath
Tinucherian 09:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-directed the page per suggestion. See the details. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose   T   04:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I wonder why "C" was selected to start the name instead of "K"? Koonan Cross seems more natural and is the natural choice of most Indian-English speakers. I'm a bit tired of reverting when I really don't agree with this spelling. Student7 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coonan Cross Oath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110627005303/http://www.education.kerala.gov.in/englishmedium/historyeng/chapter8.pdf to http://www.education.kerala.gov.in/englishmedium/historyeng/chapter8.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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) 18:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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) 21:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: It would be nice if you could explain your views on a proposed chronological presentation (date of original publishing) of various interpretations on the Coonan Cross Oath. Anjuvannam (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you and other editors are thinking chronological presentation is the better way, I am fine with that. I am not going to alter the ordering. But I feel, we need to keep third party versions first. That is, authors like Stephen Neil, Robert Erick Frykenberg etc. who are not from either Pazhayakoor or Puthenkoor factions of Saint Thomas Christians. Even though, at times, Neil/Frykenberg/ etc. are quoting (fully or partially) some of the church historians from Saint Thomas community in their books, at least we can say that they have selected that version because they felt that's more correct among other versions. So think of keeping third party versions first. [Even I believe, personally, we need to keep versions "only" from the books of these kind of authors to represent different views on this event (keep only 2 to 3 or a maximum of 4 versions to understand different interpretations) - its a suggestion to take up later] - --John C. (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , Okay. In that case, the chronological order may be unnecessary. Another recommendation is that these versions can be categorized into primary and secondary and then bring the chronological order into each category. If so, the problem you mentioned will be resolved. Anjuvannam (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

text: , yes, we can categorize them - but not making any titles as 'primary'  and 'secondary' in the article itself - and order them. In that case, I guess, the sequence will be Stephen Neil,Robert Eric Frykenberg, Angamaly Padiyola, Church Missionary Society Report, Punnathara Dionysius, E.M. Philip. Correct me if I am wrong - --John C. (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, you can categorize it as you see proper. That being said, in our opinion this classification seems to be better. Anjuvannam (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  while agreeing with your opinion ["Moving secondary sources first as they supposed to be less biased"] and the adjustment you have made, some sort of distinction is still needed between the types of sources. Anjuvannam (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , Yes, agree....there should be some distinction. May be in future, the titles Secondary Sources, Primary Sources  can  be replaced with better wordings based on suggestions from other users too. For now, we can keep these title names like this way. Btw, because of these changes, the whole section looks more organized. Thanks - --John C. (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

text: and others, In addition to above discussion and discussions in below section, just wanted to share my final views on arranging various interpretations from different historians which are currently listed in the subsection Secondary Sources in the article - There the focus should be on right representation of different interpretations on this event. Luckily in the current/latest version of the article, it is more or less in that way, at least based on the sources currently we have.  After editing on this part for some days, I realized that chronological order (date of original publishing) is not a right criteria here. Hence requesting to keep this style (representation of different interpretations) rather following a chronological order or any other order. ---John C. (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological arrangement 

message: Can you explain what is the issue with quote from Idavakapathrika? Why these changes - ,  made and what is expected here? ---John C. (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , It is a vernacular language source and it is not a direct link for Idavakapathrika. How can you tell if what is said there is true or not? I think there is a an issue of WP:QS here.  Anjuvannam (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of reasons. First of all, it is not in English. Secondly, the source must meet the criteria for reliability. The book doesn't seem to have been cited anywhere else. See WP:RS and WP:VERIFY for further details on citations. Anjuvannam (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Version in Idavakapathrika