Talk:Violence against Christians in India

Issues with sources

A number of Christian news websites have been used to source this article. These websites have a clear conflict of interest, since they were made to raise awareness on persecution against Christians. Given their natural bias, these websites are not reliable sources. Please reference the article from neutral sources. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

These sites, especially Christian Solidarity Wordwide is also used as a reference in the Christianity in India article. See this [1]. However an effort is going on to find reliable and neutral sites. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS states partisan sources should be avoided at all costs. CSW is partisan, its like asking Hindu Unity to interpret the world and then give them a soapbox on wiki. It should be removed on sight.Bakaman 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Link 3 is from MANAS, a known POV anti-Hindu site. Link 1 and 3 do not substantiate rapes of nuns. Jobxavier (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A picture of a burnt girl has been put. Please avoid such stuff which may cause further divide within harmonal Indian society. Even Hindus can put such stuff, what Christian fanatics in Chattisgarh, North-East India are commiting towards Hindus n Buddhists. When You are mentioning about Sangh Parivars communal activity then you also should mention about unethical conversions activities by Christian missionaries which is the main cause of irritaion for Hindus, Sikhs n Buddhists. Even Mahatama Gandhi's Book does mention about unethical conversions by Christian Missionaries in India. Indianprithvi (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Christian Solidarity Worldwide receives the most foreign contributions and is on the watch list of India's External Affairs, Home and Finance departments. It might soon be banned in India

Jobxavier (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Only USA and UNO warnings are seen. Warnings from other countries may also be added. Donations are welcome from anywhere. Jobxavier (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Genuine violence on Christians is being deleted by someone with POV

The sad Sister Abhaya murder case is an example of violence perpetrated against Christians. It so happens that it was perpetrated by insiders. For some reason, a person with POV keeps removing this information, which has been validated by human rights workers as a genuine violation of human rights.Ezhava (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen such manipulative statement. See below. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And also assume good faith. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid your statements are a little self-contradictory. You claim that any violence perpetrated by Christians is 'criminal', but any violence perpetrated on Christians is ipso facto 'religious'. This, alas, shows a clear POV. There is the Muringoor Center incident, where 975 Christians have been murdered. You surely don't claim this is also 'criminal'? 975 people over 10 years? I am sorry, that is religious violence targeting Christians. Ezhava (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No calim of mine is self-contradictory. I have never said that any violence perpetrated by Christians is criminal. In this article only those facts will remain which are Religious violence. The argument you are showing is clearly POV. In this article there is no general crime incident and general crime incidents will not stay here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You objected to merging this with 'Religious violence' in the AfD because you wanted to have something that was about 'Violence against Christians'. Now you change your mind and do not want 'Violence against Christians'. I am sorry, that is contradictory. You are, in effect, saying, "My POV is better than anybody else's POV". This is not in the right spirit. Ezhava (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Now you change your mind and do not want Violence against Christians" whoa? who changed mind? Do not try to misinterprete my statement. I objected because it is about 'Violence against Christians'. Now what 'Violence against Christians' mean? I hope any person with minimum knowledge in Religion and Religious violence will understand. 'Violence against Christians' mean violence against some people because they are Christians. Sister Abhaya murder case was not Religious violence. Sister Abhaya was not murdered for her religion, she was not murdered due to her Christian admiration. This deliberate disparging of the article's subject and misinterpretation of other's statement is not good faith. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate manipulation is being done with POV

First of all maintain WP:CIVIL. Sister Abhaya murder case was an criminal incident, a rape and homicide case. This was not religiously motivated incident. It is completely absurd to claim this incidence as anti-Christian violence. According to your argument, any rape of Hindu woman by some Hindu mob can be referred to as anti-Hindu violence. Any snacting of a Hindu person by some Hindu gangsters can be referred to as anti-Hindu violence. Absurd argument. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Vvarkey: You have, without answering the points in the Discussion page, reverted a big NPOV edit. I shall have to report you If you do this again. i shall watch the next such Revert and check the Id of the Editor.

Jobxavier (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph

I double-checked the sources, and none of them seemed to confirm what the paragraph said, that this nun was murdered because of her religion by a Christian. In fact, they didn't even seem to confirm that she was killed by a Christian. Not being able to verify that the information was accurate, I removed it for now, but once the two of you are unblocked, you'll be able to discuss it in more detail, and if there's another source that can verify the information, you'll be able to add it then. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian centre in Kerala

While this may suggest Anti-Christian prejudice and violence, nowhere in the article does it say without question that this is Anti-Christian violence perpetrated by Hindus, instead it covers a tragic denial of justice allegedly because of some wealthy influential members of society. So at this point it is Original Research. Darrowen (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably WP:SYN. These were input by user Ezhava. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed some of the incidents you listed from the Vinay Lal article. Those incidents were against Christians, but in no way, does the article or the Vinay Lal piece explain how they were religiously-motivated. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not some incidents, that is one incident, only one incident - the murder of George Kuzhikandam. I have just written it from the Vinay Lal article. I agree with you particularly in this George Kuzhikandam case. I google searched twice about George Kuzhikandam murder case. But all the references I found mention that the motivation behind the murder is not clear, some list it as anti-Christian, others say it for money. So it is better not to mention this incident. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Restored

Since violence against Christians in India has become a major issue, I am restoring this article. In light of recent events such as Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka and Religious violence in Orissa, I wish to mention it briefly under this article with details in cited articles. Anyone who thinks the article unwarrantable can over again take it to AfD or request for a fresh merge proposal, which is the place for a discussion. But note that in light of recent incidents, it is evident that this independent article is really worth keeping. Thank you. --Googlean (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I find that the same editors figure in all POV insertions in any Article related to Indian Christians. Jobxavier (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

POV PROPAGANDA

1. "The acts of violence include arson of churches, forcible conversion of Christians to

Hinduism, distribution of threatening literature, burning of Bibles, raping of nuns, murder

of Christian priests and destruction of Christian schools, colleges, and cemeteries"

Links should be given to substantiate rape of nuns.

2. That violence began only when missionaries started converting illiterates and the

impoverished should be mentioned. The various legislations in the States against

proselytisation are relevant.

3. " UCLA history professor Vinay Lal believes the increase in anti-Christian violence in

India bears a direct relationship to the ascendancy of the Bharatiya Janata Party

(BJP).[3]"

Violence began after 1984 when Rajiv Gandhi became PM. That his wife was an Italian

Catholic led to assertion by Christians.

4. "Anti-Christian sentiment in India dates back to the colonial period when successive

Portuguese, French and British forces made attempts to convert portions of the Indian

population" The Goan Inquisition should be mentioned here.

5. " Since 1998, Christians in India have faced a wave of violence.[5] In 1998 alone, 90

incidents were reported.[3]" In 1998, Sonia Gandhi became an MP.

6. "...against "forcible conversion" activities undertaken by missionaries,[6] a claim

described as "absurd" and rejected by scholars;[3"

Only Christian fundamentalists have described it as absurd. Link 3 is from MANAS site.

7. "In September 2008, two churches were partly damaged in Kerala. [9]" The suspects revealed to the Police that they had been asked to do so by elements

within the Church to divert attention from sex scandals and money allegations.

8. "Some Hindu activists forcefully removed the Christmas decoration, resulting in

many deaths and the destruction of houses and churches.[10][11]"

The NCM reported that the Pandhal had been put up in a piece of land traditionally

used by Hindus as part of religion. The attack on a Hindu Swami triggered the violence.

9. "Murder of Graham Staines" That he was proselytising with Australian money in backward areas is relevant.

10. "Politics"

A very POV paragraph. Sonia Gandhi should be brought in here.

11. "National Commission for Minorities"

That it has only non-Hindu members is relevant.

Also the New Light Church had been distributing vulgar palmphlets against Hindu gods in Karnataka, which finally led to retaliation.

I am actually picking up lessons in Propaganda from the articles in WP on anti-Christian violence .

I request the POV editors to discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobxavier (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Vvarkey: You have, without answering the points in the Discussion page, reverted a big NPOV edit. I shall have to report you If you do this again. i shall watch the next such Revert and check the Id of the Editor.

Jobxavier (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobxavier (talk • contribs)

jobxavier - please let me know which edit you are referring to. i will try to give my reasoning. I believe I have maintained NPOV. thanks --vvarkey (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

VVarkeys : Please read my comments in this Page

Jobxavier (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read them, but they're quite general and directed at all editors. Is there a specific change that you wish to discuss? Thanks --vvarkey (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Gujarat In Gujarat, there has been a sharp increase in violent attacks on Christians. Recently, a Hindu group claims to have converted 2,000 tribal Christians to Hinduism. The attackers had vandalized places of worship and thus caused strike terror among the tribals. On 18 September, the Central Government issued an advisory under Article 355 of the constitution to the Orissa government along with Karnataka. [12] [13]" This does not make sense. Is the para about Gujarat or Orissa ans Karnataka?

Jobxavier (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

SUGGESTION TO DELETE POV ARTICLE

The Article is entirely POV and a mere exercise in propaganda. This does not bring credit to WP. The author and POV editors should be suitably counselled. The Article should be deleted. Violence is only against Conversion; not against Christians. In Kerala, where one-fourth of Indian Christians live, there has never been any violence.

Jobxavier (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Your rationale is absolutely pathetic and misleading. It is well written article which has completely supported by Reliable sources. Each & every sentence was properly sourced. If there is reliable sources support an article, it is not called council, it is called universal truth. There are many reasons behind violence. Conversion can be one of such reasons. As BBC, NDTV & Times of India reported, the base is all Anti-Christian violence and that should be the proper title. Who said there is no violence reported from Kerala? Take off your time and search for it. This is one evidence. Did you know that last month itself there are many churches and prayer homes were vandalized in Kerala. --Googlean (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

At least, the Catholic Bishops of Kerala do not share your POV. Please see You will agree that a propaganda initiative has always been on against India and Hindus on the Net. For example, when a Hindu servant [a prospectuve convert) succumbed to burns in Orissa, the world was immediately told that a nun had been burnt alive. It is known that every imaginary hurt is over-publicised only to get more foreign donations. Remember how the Tsunami brought forth well-received appeals from churches in non-Tsunami hit areas of Kerala, with pictures of 'hit' churches. Nevertheless, I appreciate your Crusades-like enthusuasm.

Jobxavier (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved by consensus. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-conversion violence in India → Anti-Christian violence in India. The previous move was bad faith as it was not properly discussed. As BBC, NDTV & Times of India and other well known Reliable sources reported (see article reference list), Anti-Christian violence is the proper title. Additionally, if anyone searches for both titles in any search engine, Anti-Christian violence comes with ["Anti-Christian+violence+in+India"&btnG=Google+Search&meta=] more than 10,000 hits. On the other hand, ["Anti-conversion+violence+in+India"&btnG=Search&meta=] shown zero results. What I am saying is that there are many reasons behind the violence. Not only by conversion which is merely discussed by media and not at all suitable for the title. Therefore, the current move is unwarrantable and it should be reverted to the previous title. --Googlean (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Per my comment above. --Googlean (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I moved the article to "Violence Against Christian in India". I apologize, it should have been with consensus here in the discussion. I am not able to undo my change, and don't think i should move the article again back to "Anti conversion". As reasoned above, the title Anti-conversion violence in India does not make sense. It is not only missionaries that are targets. It is the Christian community as a whole --vvarkey (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - In addition to millions of google hits, have a look at DNA, guardian, Hindustan Times and yahoo, all speaks about Anti-Christian violence in India which is the proper title, not any Anti-conversion. --Googlean (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Votes moved from WP:RM

• Support This move was taken without discussion by a long-term disruptive editor. Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support I moved the article again without realizing it was under Wikipedia:Requested Moves. I support this move, please move the article as you see fit once it's approved here. My reasoning is that the Christian community as a whole is being targeted, rather than only missionaries. --vvarkey (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(Note that one of these is already duplicated above, but in slightly different terms. Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

Move protection

This page has been moved so many times as a POV statement that it's approaching ridiculousness. I've move-protected it for 72 hours to allow time for discussion and consensus building. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Page is pure POV. It should be deleted. It seems to be missionary propaganda to create sympathy in the West to induce more donations to missionary outfits in India.

Jobxavier (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider and an uninvolved editor, I have to say that I'm concerned about your POV. You seem to regularly bringing up this issue, and yet it is repeatedly told to you that the article is well-referenced. It seems that you are trying to make a point, which is inappropriate. If you have issues with referenced information, or if you believe a cited reference is unreliable, please address that specifically, but your overall accusations and your repeated move attempts show pretty clearly your own blatant POV. I'm asking you to back off a bit, and keep you comments here neutral. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You have ignored that the references are POV. Jobxavier (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jobxavier : Vandalism final warning

Jobxavier: you have again vandalized the article. you've removed the well sourced image yet again. You have inserted the same unreferenced text about Sonia Gandhi. You do this on an almost daily basis. Please consider this as a final warning. The next time I will be forced to report you. Thanks. --vvarkey (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Varkeys - Please do not be upset at the face of truth. Some editors are using the WP for missionary propaganda presumably to invoke western sympathy and get them to donate more. Stand by to project NPOV here.

I should report you for vandalisimg my Edits and any non-anti India POV anywhere in WP. You have filled WP with anti-India POV. You also indulge in name calling and personal attacks. However, If the pic would help your mission in any way, let it remain. It is World Solidarity POV?

Jobxavier (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

US State Department

Source that does not verify data cannot be accepted. Jobxavier (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this unacceptable POV data with original research be removed.

Jobxavier (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Using children's pics to push POV

The child's pic cannot be used to push POV. There is no independent proof about the pic. Using a fake and touched up pic of a minor and child is churlish. It must be removed. Jobxavier (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jobxavier. Please see this link: [See Reuters section] See image 8 of 30. This is the same image, from reuters, which is a reliable source . (this info was provided by RecordFreeNow) --vvarkey (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The pic is from the AICC site, a POV site. Even in India, a heathen country, there are rules prohibiting use of children and their pics maliciously. I repeat that this is a childish style of POV. I resent your Hate-India POV. Jobxavier (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jobxavier, you are saying too many lies without any reference or evidence. Please add evidences, instead of blindly put your pov remarks. --Googlean (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"you are saying too many lies "?? A very childish remark; or you do not know what a lie means in English. I also note that you use usages like "absolutely pathetic and misleading" very freely. It is from the AICC site, put there within 24 hours of the beginning of the violence. It might not even be that of an Indian child. [Remember how they reported that a nun was burnt alive.] Reuters does not say the pic was taken by them. They only borrowed it from AICC. Recordfree got it from AICC only, as he has said elsewhere. Using gory pics of children [albeit doctored] for propaganda is against UN and WHO directives and cannot be allowed even by missionaries. The pic must be removed, Christian Solidarity POV or not. I am not removing it because I like it to remain as an example of proselytisation propaganda here. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Girl_sufferedwithburnwounds.jpg gives it that rhe pic is from AICC site. Summary Description English: A Christian girl who was bruised and burnt during the Orissa violence in August 2008. This girl was injured with burns bruises during anti Christian violence by Hindu nationalists. Source All India Christian council http://indianchristians.in/news/content/view/2332/45/ Date 31-08-2008 Author All India Christian Council

Jobxavier (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest again that the disputed pic of the child used against international laws and conventions be removed.

Jobxavier (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

NCM composition

Jobxavier - you continue to put back this text regarding NCM, saying that it has only non-Hindu members. That is simply not true. See the link National Commission for Minorities. For example, Dileep Padagaonkar is a prominent Hindu member. --vvarkey (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Harcharan Singh Josh a non-Hindu? --Googlean (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"A number of Konkani Christians are of Saraswat descent. While a small percentage of all Indian Christians, they dominate the Catholic church hierarchy in the country."

Harcharan Singh Josh is a Turban-wearing Sikh, not a Hindu.

Please tell me which of the others are Hindus? Thank you.

Jobxavier (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Because the edit war has continued despite my warnings to the provoking person, I'm protecting the article until people start discussing their proposed changes and supporting refs on the talk page. This war stops now, folks. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RE-CAPTIONING THE ARTICLE AS 'RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE' insread of 'Anti-Christian....'

Agreed that violence has been mutual, the title of the artcle should be changed as above. Or it should be deleted as an article that disparages the subject.

Jobxavier (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)