Jump to content

Talk:Varkey Vithayathil: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Request for undoing of move: that's the idea, related topic
Line 25: Line 25:
:::I haven't checked any of these sources but will. But that's the idea!
:::I haven't checked any of these sources but will. But that's the idea!


:::On s related topic, it would be good to use these sources to improve the [[Mar]] article, which might justify removing the <nowiki>{{Unreferenced|date=December 2009}}</nowiki> tag from it. That would be a much bigger improvement to Wikipedia than this proposed move! [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 20:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
:::On a related topic, it would be good to use these sources to improve the [[Mar]] article, which might justify removing the <nowiki>{{Unreferenced|date=December 2009}}</nowiki> tag from it. That would be a much bigger improvement to Wikipedia than this proposed move! [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 20:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:27, 1 May 2011

Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil?

Isnt it Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil? thunderboltz 15:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil or Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil is accecptable. Wikipedia's naming conventions specify the Cardinal to be placed before the surname, for consistency in article titles. Gentgeen 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undoing of move

Mar Varkey VithayathilVarkey VithayathilRelisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC) The move from "Varkey Vithayathil" to "Mar Varkey Vithayathil" inserted a title or rank as part of a person's name, similar to naming an article "Bishop John Smith" or "President Barak Obama". "John Smith (bishop)" is accepted in Wikipedia as an article title, but not "Bishop John Smith". Relisted again. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Relisted. Jafeluv (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Esoglou (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mar is not similar to bishop or other titles. It is a change in the first name. Varkey becomes Mar Varkey when Varkey Vithayathil becomes a bishop. If it were a title, it would be Mar Vithayathil, similar to President Reagan or Archbishop Vithayathil, but such is not the usage. Writing Mar Varkey Vithayathil (writing the correct first name) is not the same as writing Archbishop Varkey Vithayathil (prefixing a title). Karnan (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is elected to the See of Peter, he takes the title "Pope": "Pope" does not become part of his first name. "Mar" is a title: it does not become part of a man's name. Any more than any other title becomes part of the recipient's name. "Mar" is used with (not as part of) the first name, not the surname. Just as, traditionally, Religious Sister Joan Smith is known as Sister Joan, not as Sister Smith - "Sister" is a title, not part of a name. Just as, when John Smith is knighted, he is referred to as Sir John, not as Sir Smith - "Sir" is a title, not part of a name. Just as with the Portuguese title for a bishop, "Dom", Dom João Pereira is known as Dom João, not as Dom Pereira - "Dom" is a title, not part of a name. Whichever name, first name or family name, a title such as "Mar" is used with, it is still a title, not an additional name or part of a name. Esoglou (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mar is a kind of title different from Bishop and President; it is different from Father and Sister in that it is never used with the surname; the former two can be used with surname (or informally with the first name, when the first name suffices for identification). It is also different from Pope, which is a title, yet prefixed to a (newly adopted) first name, and where the surname is not used. Note that the wikipaedia articles on popes add the title Pope in the respective article names. (Sir is also a title, which is prefixed to the first name, even though there is a surname. But knights do not bear the title as a denotation of their committed vocations, at least in modern times. Dom is similar, and is not exclusively used for consecrated bishops.) Mar, in contrast, becomes part of the first name in a stronger sense than all these cases, and denotes commitment to a vocation rather than an office. If popes can have their titles prefixed to their article names, so can bishops in the Syriac system. It is also the practice in the Indian system across religions and churches, e.g., Mar Thoma I, Punnathara Mar Dionysious (Mar Thoma XI), Pulikkottil Joseph Mar Dionysious II, Geevarghese Mar Dionysius of Vattasseril, Gheevarghese Mar Gregorios of Parumala, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Sri Aurobindo, Narayana Guru (a suffix), Maulana Mohammad Ali, etc. Karnan (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we must wait for input by others. I can only repeat that, whether attached to a person's first, middle or last name, "Mar" is a title, like "Sir", "Sister", "Cardinal", "Doctor", etc. And you can only repeat that, unlike these other words, "Mar" is not a title but part of a person's name. Esoglou (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let us wait. To be very short, my position is that it is a kind of title which is very strongly attached to the first name as part of a vocation. (Informally it is best to think of it as becoming part of the first name, but that is not completely precise.) There are not much examples in Western contexts except for Sir and classical knighthood (not the modern version where a sense of vocation is lost) and Dom. In India there are a few other examples as I have quoted. Swami is reasonably well known and spmewhat similar. Karnan (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are these Indian naming conventions documented anywhere you can show us? So far, we just have two conflicting personal opinions. Obviously, Google is no help with this issue, but some evidence would be nice. Relisting again. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official dissertation that I know of on the naming conventions of religious figures (or, for that matter, people with a committed vocation) in a traditional Indian (or Eastern) context. In circles where these matter, the fact is trivial. Evidence can only be presented by examples. One would be hard pressed to find a single scholarly reference to many of the names quoted above without the titles. There should be better documentation for Syriac bishops, though again, the matter is usually taken for granted, it seems (I do not know about any official documentation for those either). The practice of using the common name should settle the issue (and I think, override the practice of avoiding the usual kind of titles like Professor, Doctor, etc.). I shall write again if I am able to find any references. Karnan (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia itself describes Mar not as a name, as a title "placed before the Christian name". The explanations given on this forum agree. And what is written in this forum also agrees. But let us turn to what Wikipedia classifies as reliable sources. This book says: "Mar is the Syrian title for bishop." Practically the same statement appears in this book: "Mar is a title given to the Syrian bishops, and is nearly equivalent to the word lord." This handbook to Syriac studies says: "Mor (or Mar) is an honorific title used both for bishops and for saints." Another book says: "Mar, literally 'My Lord', a usual title of ecclesiastics and saints. This title always occurs in the commentaries when the Commentary of Ephraem is referred to." This other states: "It was pointed out that the title 'Mar' or Saint is commonly used for prophets as well as saints (See above, p. 15. In the second Syriac inscription, Appendix I, the title is used for Bishop Diskoros)." Similar is the statement in this book: "Mali Hashiya is the transliteration of the Syriac Mari Hasia, which is a common title for a saint or bishop. Mali Hashiya, therefore, is not the name of a person but an additional title of Mar Solomon." All these sources speak of "Mar" as a title, not a name. It makes no difference where it is inserted. Whether associated with the first name or the second name, it is still a title.
Need I add that the title used by the Syrian Christians in India is of course a Syriac word? Esoglou (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked any of these sources but will. But that's the idea!
On a related topic, it would be good to use these sources to improve the Mar article, which might justify removing the {{Unreferenced|date=December 2009}} tag from it. That would be a much bigger improvement to Wikipedia than this proposed move! Andrewa (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]