Talk:Christianity in India

I think it's hardly 'absurd' to use Indian numbers – this is an India-related article. In a recent discussion on the Indian wikipedians' notice-board, there seemed to be a consensus that it was best to cite figures in lakhs and crores, but to mention the corresponding figure in millions in parentheses. Do feel free to add more millions figures in parentheses if you feel the article needs them. QuartierLatin1968 14:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Syrian Christian Tradition

Um... Yeah, so, I'm gonna go ahead and modify "tradition of more than 2000 years" in re Syrian Christians, because that would mean the community was founded when Christ was, at the oldest, 6 years old.. And don't bitch to me about the actual year of Christ's birth because I'll just ignore you (you pretentious wad, whoever you are). Nearly 2000 years would be much better!Witnessforpeace 10:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What? Why on earth should we use a number system that nobody outside India understands? What purpose is served by this? john k 15:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me add again, Huh? The normal number system is understood by everybody likely to be reading wikipedia. Wikipedia should be for the benefit of users, not the convenience of editors (all of whom are clearly aware of the normal numbering system, anyway). john k 15:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). john k 15:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I may add, it's just a chance for editors to flex their know-it-all muscle, show everybody how smart they are... GG98

Other issues

The article should address the difficulties missionaries faced, and still face, in attempting to convert Hindus to Christianity: namely that many will readily accept Christ, but not give up the other gods -- it's common to see, in many "Christian" households, a shrine with a depiction of Jesus, but also various other Hindu gods. Badagnani 06:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. More input on that front is required. You said: It's common to see, in many "Christian" households, a shrine with a depiction of Jesus, but also various other Hindu gods. - Could you elaborate that a bit? I myself am a Christian (from India), but I know of no such picture. Perhaps you are refering to the depiction of the Gods of Hinduism, Christianity and Islam together in one picture frame? Such a depiction is very common in India; and is just a reiteration of the Indian weltanschauung, which stresses on unity in diversity.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}13:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman Urdu

Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus. I think it would be a great idea to make mention on Roman Urdu on this page or a related one as it is used by many Indian Christians. Does anyone else think this would be plausible? I added a link to the Roman Urdu article on the See Also section for now. Thanks. Jdas07 20:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Indians who converted

Not all Indians who converted to Christianity in India were Hindu. Many Indians in Kerala were Jews. Mochamalu 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The incorrect data was added by a new editor. I've reverted the POV edits. Thanks for pointing out.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 14:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It was mentioned that of those who converted, part of them voluntarily and the other half, with force. Except for the inquisition which happened in Goa centuries ago, What modern day examples can the editor quote from Indian diaspore. -- IAK 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoax?

Why does the article contain a disclaimer indicating it's suspected of being a hoax? Tomer^talk 12:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

because isolated incidents are being used to foment bias. Besides, the issues there are not related to religion but communalism, which is a different matter from religion. Rumpelstiltskin223 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with hoaxes? Tomer^talk 21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The hoax is in the implicit claim that this has anything to do with Christianity (since it is written in the Christianity in India article). This was put there by a group Islamist editors and their socks as a revenge for their tendentious edits to other articles which got reverted by legitimate wikipedians (this is why the article is locked presently) and it will be removed once the article is unlocked. This section belongs in articles on Indian communalism, not in an article on religion.Rumpelstiltskin223 21:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm tempted to unlock the article and take that crap out of there. Tomer^talk 21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The hoax tag should be taken out and replaced with an "accuracy" or "disputed" tag, as the hoax tag causes the whole article to be categorized as a hoax. Tubezone 19:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As it is, that's how I happened upon this article to begin with... I would have removed the tag, but didn't bcz at the last moment, I noticed the article is presently protected. Tomer^talk 06:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolving editing disputes.

What are the disputes, who's involved, and how do the involved parties intend to move forward? Tomer^talk 21:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute, just a revenge edit-war, see this complaint and this RFCU. Rumpelstiltskin223 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I ran into this article through Category:Wikipedia cleanup. Concerning the Hindu Christian Conflict section I would like to edit it down to those facts supported by the sources only, so that I may remove both tags currently in place there, i.e.: Not verified & hoax. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 05:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please propose versions of the disputed section here. Tomer^talk 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See below. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 09:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed section changes to Hindu Christian Conflict

The following are my suggested changes to the Hindu Christian Conflict section.

The Government of the state of Tripura has uncovered evidence to support the assertion that the Baptist Church of Tripura has been supporting the terrorist group National Liberation Front of Tripura, a violent separatist group that has massacred thousands of Hindus in the region that has banned Hindu festivals by force .

The Baptist Church of Tripura was initially set up by missionaries from New Zealand in the 1940s. Despite their efforts, even until the 1980s, only a few thousand people in Tripura had converted to Christianity.

In the aftermath of one of the worst ethnic riots, the NLFT was born in 1989—allegedly with the help of the Baptist Church. Since then, the NLFT has been advancing its cause through armed rebellion .

I could not verify the following paragraph: The Hindu Nationalist Sangh Parivar has been at odds with Christians in India. Evangelical Christians in central and eastern India were recovering from injuries Wednesday, December 27, 2006 after Hindu Nationalists attacked them for singing Christmas carols, Christian leaders said Pastor Phillip Jagdalla of the Jehovah Pentecostal Church in Chhattisgarh's Raipur area was accused of distributing toffee (Candy) to Sunday school students and therefore "was badly beaten" up by police, the group claimed. Evangelism effectively outlawed in Tamil Nadu state [1].

I could not verify the following paragraph:Many Christians in India regard anti-conversion laws passed by some states in India as a persecution of their religion. Although the same christian missionaries themselves asked for a similar legislation in light of Bnei Menashe controversy.

Several states in India controlled by the Hindu nationalist party, such as Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, have passed laws prohibiting conversion.

I could not verify the following information:In October 2002, governor of Tamil Nadu issued an ordinance aimed at preventing people from converting to Christianity, on the grounds that such conversions occur due to fraud. The accused may be sentenced to up to three years in jail if convicted of such a crime. It should be noted that the majority of instances of persecutions of Christians in India do not involve the native Saint Thomas Christians, but rather Latin Rite Roman Catholics and Protestants. This ordinance was reportedly later repealed.

I could not verify the following paragraph: In July, 2006, Madhya Pradesh government passed legislation requiring people who desire to convert to a different religion to provide the government with one-month's notice, or face fines and penalties.

→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 09:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The following was removed from the Hindu Christian Conflict section:

The cause of the terror groups are supported by leadership of the American Baptist Churches USA. John Sundquist of International Ministries ABC/USA stated support for these groups in a release on Feb. 26, 1998.

the reasons is I refered to the source[2] a google group discussion which had the press release posted. I followed the link in the posting where I could find the actual press release on their website, [3] however the link in the posting to the posters site lead me to a page not found. If the site can be reached and contains the press release, please put it back in. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 06:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to this press release . I have reinserted the statement, but am not sure it belongs where I reinserted it. Can someone take a look and fix it? Kkm5848 (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the ABC press release referenced above. The press release shows that the leadership of the American Baptist Churches USA supports a separatist group in Nagaland. But the included Wikipedia paragraph makes it sound like the ABC supports all kinds of terrorism in India, specifically in Tripura. The ABC press release says nothing about Tripura or any other Indian state. The Tripura rebellion has a completely different character than the separatist movement in Nagaland, where the population is 90% Christian. The paragraph is grossly misleading! Here is the entire paragraph: "The Government of the state of Tripura has allegedly uncovered evidence to support the assertion that the Baptist Church of Tripura has been supporting the terrorist group National Liberation Front of Tripura, a violent separatist group that has attacked and killed Hindus in the region and that has banned Hindu festivals by force.[18] The cause of the terror groups are supported by leadership of the American Baptist Churches USA. John Sundquist of International Ministries ABC/USA stated support for these groups in a release on Feb. 26, 1998.[19]" There is an issue about the local Baptist church in Tripura being involved in the NLFT, but there is nothing to tie the two Baptist groups together. The term "these groups" is used to make it seem like the ABC supports NLFT, but the press release says nothing of the kind. - Joe Klein jfklein33 (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.172 (talk)

The removed portion Many Christians in India regard anti-conversion laws passed by some states in India as a persecution of their religion. Although the same christian missionaries themselves asked for a similar legislation in light of Bnei Menashe controversy. is, in my experience, true...but trying to source how "many Christians ... regard ... laws" is pretty difficult, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is trying to determine how many "many" really is. It is also true that the greatest opposition in the Bnei Menashe saga has been mounted by Christians who, rationally or not, apparently fearing the possibility of losing their fresh lot of converts, petitioned the Government to step in, mischeivously mischaracterizing conversion to Judaism as "proselytizing". This is detailed in several letters written by leaders of the Bnei Menashe to both the Indian and Israeli governments, some of which can be found online. I know of one off-hand, posted on kulanu's website. Tomer^talk 08:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC) P.S., I tried to get the link to the letter I'm thinking of, but Kulanu's site seems to be experiencing the hiccoughs this evening... I've gotta get to bed...if nobody finds the link by tomorrow, I'll try again. Tomer^talk 08:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Here we go. Enjoy.  :-) Tomer^talk 06:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The above section makes it seem that Hindus and Christians hate each other in the subcontinent. But there are loads of effort made in both sides to amalgamate practices and theology [4],[5],

[6],[7],[8]. If there is no objection on creating a section on Indian influence on Christianity and talk about the amalgamation/hybid of philosophies of Indian Religions with Christianity and reduce the weightage given to conflicts (I am not keen on mentioning them, but will eventually do since it seems some editors will opose its removal). Views on it are welcome. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 21:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The section is far too long, in violation of WP:UNDUE; it also suffers from WP:RECENTISM; although parts of it are referenced, others are not, and the references are not of uniform quality. I have cut it down in size, though not as much as I should. If anyone wants to spin it out into a separate article, as is due a notable subject, they are welcome to do so. However, I do not see the need for such a long section here. Relata refero (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, if anyone wants it back in, perhaps they should discuss it here first? Relata refero (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated information in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_India part

Here is the newest version, please feel free to add your comments and ideas

Roman Catholics Latin Rite 13,217,160 , Roman Catholic Syro-Malabar Church 3,674,115 , Roman Catholic Syro-Malankara Church 408,725 = total number of Roman Catholics 17.3 million members

There is not duplication these are three different enteties of Roman Catholic Church Pakhomovru (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary situation

A Roman Catholic Church in Kochi.

The total number of Christians in India is at least 38,200,400, or 3.4% of the population.

Majority of Indian Christians are Roman Catholics 17.3 million members , including 408,725 members of the Roman Catholic Syro-Malankara Church and 3,674,115 of the Roman Catholic Syro-Malabar Church. In January 1993 the Syro-Malabar Church and in February 2005 Syro-Malankara Church were raised to the status of major archiepiscopal churches by Pope John Paul II. The Syro-Malabar Church is the second largest among 22 Eastern Catholic Churches who accept the pope (Bishop of Rome) as the "visible head of the whole church".

Most Protestant denominations are represented in India, as a result of missionary activities throughout the country. The largest Protestant denomination in the country is the Church of South India, since 1947 a union of Presbyterian, Reformed, Congregational, Methodist, and Anglican congregations with approximately 3.8 million members. A similar Church of North India had 1.25 million members. (These churches are in full communion with the Anglican Communion.) The Mar Thoma Church has 900,000 members, and derives from the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, which numbers 2 million and is in communion with the Anglicans, but not a full member. In 1961, the evangelical wing of the church came out of Mar Thoma Church and formed the St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India which has 10,000 members . Syrian Orthodox Church of Malabar rites 2,200,000 members, respectively. There were about 1,267,786 million Lutherans, 648,000 Methodists, and 1,850,000 Baptists . Pentecostalism, another denomination of Protestantism, is also a rapidly growing religion in India. It is spreading greatly in northern India and the southwest area, such as Kerala. The major Pentecostal churches in India are the Assemblies of God, India Pentecostal Church of God (IPC) with 900,000 members. New Apostolic Church founded in 1969, with total adherents of 1,448,209. The New Life Fellowship (founded in 1968) now has approximately 480,000 adherents, and the Manna Full Gospel churches and ministries (founded in 1968 with connections to Portugal) has 275,000. Evangelical Church of India now has over 680 churches with a 250,000 community. Another prominent group is the Brethrens. They are known in different names Plymouth Brethren, Indian Brethren, Kerala brethren. Presbyterian Church of India has 823,456 members. Nagaland Baptist Church Council has 307,949 members.

During the twentieth century, the fastest growing Christian communities have been located in the northeast, among the Khasis, Mizos, Nagas, and other hill tribes. Today Christians are most prevalent in the northeast, and in the southwestern states of Kerala and Goa. Indian Christians have contributed significantly to and are well represented in various spheres of national life. They are currently chief ministers of the states like Andhra Pradesh, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Meghalaya, and they were chief ministers earlier of Kerala, Manipur, Goa, and Chattisgarh. In the powerful election committee of the ruling Indian National Congress party, they take four out of twenty places.

The purchasing power of the Christian community in India was estimated at about $15 billion in 2005 (or 2 per cent of the national total).

Christianity in India

Church Name	Population
Roman Catholics Latin Rite	13,217,160
Roman Catholic Syro-Malabar Church	3,674,115
Roman Catholic Syro-Malankara Church	408,725
Church of South India	3,800,000
New Apostolic Church	1,448,209
Church of North India	1,250,000
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church	2,500,000
Mar Thoma Church	900,000
Syrian Orthodox Church of Malabar	2,200,000
Lutherans	1,267,786
Methodists	648,000
Baptists	1,850,000
India Pentecostal Church of God	900,000
Indian Brethren	1,000,000
St. Thomas Evangelical Church	1,000,000
Presbyterian Church of India	823,456
New Life Fellowship	480,000
Nagaland Baptist Church Council	307,949
Manna Full Gospel	275,000
Evangelical Church	250,000

Question for User: Pakhomovru

Can you please explain why you are blanket-reverting changes to the article (diff) and deleting other user's comments from this talk-page (my comments, Wikiality's comments) ? Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I did it so fast in general you were mixing churches, please have a look how it is now, if you are not agree you we can discuss it Pakhomovru (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

There are quite a few pictures of Churches in the article. Wouldn't be a better idea to make a collage of a few, rather than having them placed all over. There seems to be no best place to keep them, since it all depends on the size of your system screen. I can't think of anything better than making a collage. If we could make a list of prominent Churches in India then we can just make one or a couple of collages for this article. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The total number of Christians in India is at least 38,200,400, or 3.4% of the population

The total number of Christians in India is at least 38,200,400, or 3.4% of the population, this comes from the break down of the major christian churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakhomovru (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that statistic, which is contradicted by the most authoritative source on the topic: the 2001 Indian census ? Abecedare (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The break down is on the page look your selfPakhomovru (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already mentioned the double-counting problem with that data in the comment you deleted earlier. That aside, wikipedia policies prohibit synthesis. Abecedare (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is a reference to the Goa Inquisition being deleted

A link to the Goa Inquisition page was deleted by Tinu Cherian, included two lines which referenced published sources as "vandalism". Tinu Cherian left a message for me, asking not to include my "personal opinion." I hardly realized that the Goa Inquisition was my personal opinion. Vandalism is a pretty serious charge. Puck42 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is evident from the contribs of the POV push by an account -- Tinu Cherian - 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, your severe reaction to normal cited edits, including an existing Wikipedia article, is POV to me. Or can the "Christianity in India" not warrant any critical viewpoints? The neutrality of this article will then need to be disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puck42 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is information on the Goan Inquisition in the article already and also a link to the article is in the template. To give that anymore details is certainly a breach of WP:UNDUE. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. And I notice a specific reference to the Goa inquisition and conversions in the Hindu-Christian conflict section. No sense in belaboring the point further. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly the particular place where I referenced Goa inquisition did not link to the wiki article. There is a link much later. Secondly, the only fact that is mentioned is that the inquisition took place years after Xavier's death. Overall the article is completely uncritical about Christianity in India, definitely not neutral. Adding a single line on the persecution of non-Christians during the inquisition is hardly undue. BTW, this is part of history of Christianity in India, it does not really belong in Hindu-Christian conflict per se. Puck42 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I should have guessed the resistance to adding any criticism would be very well organized. So the weasel-line absolving Xavier remains whereas any words actually describing what took place in the inquisition are taken out. Why am I not surprised? Puck42 (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You really didn't bother to read WP:UNDUE, did you? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets clear up one thing about the Goa Inquisition, it was not aimed at Hindus. It was aimed at the new converts. Most conversions took palce between 1510 and 1560(I'll tell you the exact years later) but much before the Inquisistion. A group of POV pushers has constantly pushed this viewpoint that the Inquisition was aimed at converting Hindus. The truth is the Office of the Inquisition had no authority whatsoever over Hindus. Any anti-Hindu laws that were propogated after 1561 were done by the Portuguese administration not from the the Inqusuisitionaries and had no link to the inquisition itself. The only sources that claim that the Inquesition was aimed at converting Hindus are from the Hindutvawaid camp.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, yes, and who were these so called new converts? Martians? The fact is that reliable sources clearly point out that a large number of Hindu temples were destroyed and Hindus forced into Christianity (and this was even before the inquisition started). Perhaps a simple search through google books would clear your doubts. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you use your head, the new "converts" were converted to Christianity, hence, the "new converts" were "Christians" not martians. Is that such a difficult thing to understand? Can you find a single source that says that the Inquisitionalires were given authority over non-Christians? We are talking about the Inquisiton. What happended "before" the inquistion does not become part of the Inquistition. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's irrelevant since Martian-ism doesn't recognize either converting in or converting out of their religion :-) Did the Inquisitors seek permission from the local martian priest? 67.169.0.250 (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to reply to such crass nonsense. especially when I have reason to beleive that it is comming from a sock of Hkelkar. You have any issue swith the Inquistion take it up on that article's talk page. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is your earlier statement Lets clear up one thing about the Goa Inquisition, it was not aimed at Hindus. It was aimed at the new converts. Your statement is clearly false and ignorant since Hinduism doesn't recognize conversions and since you seem to be applying assumptions from your own religion into Hinduism (again clearly ignorant). The only way a person becomes a Hindu is by birth or by marriage and after that there is really no other "state of existence" for that person either in his/her current, past, or future lifetimes. So whatever you like to call these people ("new converts", etc) the fact is that they were Hindus. Its good to have religious views, but please keep yours to yourself and I won't push mine to you. Hope it makes sense to you now. Best Wishes :-) 67.169.0.250 (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm, just makes me wonder in awe why some political parties were pushing an anti-conversion bill, when conversion is not recognised in the first place. Does that mean this whole list of people were a bunch of jokers? Yes indeed, its good to have religious views, but please keep yours to yourself. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What you refer to as "Anti-conversion laws" are actually "anti-forced conversion laws" (please take a moment to actually read them). Also, the laws and constitution of India does not recognize a "persons right to convert others." However, the "right to propagate (the knowledge of) your religion" is recognized. There is a difference. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, there are laws under consideration that may make foreign funding of religious institutions illegal (and off course that will impact the conversion activities greatly). All this should be included in this article. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have struck out the comments by anon here because of POV and PA issues. Nonetheless let anon answer one simple question: Is his personal definition of who is a Hindu or non-Hindu binding to an event or person in the past. The Portuguese Inquisistionries could'nt have cared less as to whether in the eyes of Hinduism the new converts were still Hindus or not. Anon has asked a question:Did the Inquisitors seek permission from the local martian priest?Funny that anon expected them to seek permission from Hindu priests(oh Im sorry ,"Martian" priests according to anon) when they believed in the supremacy of their relegion.

PS: I will henceforth ignore any comunication from anon .--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hindus are not Christians. Hindus and Hinduism don't believe in, as per your current mindset, "supremacy" of their religion. On the contrary, all sincerely followed paths to god as considered equal. As far as "definition of who is a Hindu or whether Hinduism is a so called "binding event" I suggest you start reading up. Google books should be helpful. Don't expect me to "educate" you here. Best Wishes. 19:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.0.250 (talk)

Also, I agree with your statement The Portuguese Inquisistionries could'nt have cared less as to whether in the eyes of Hinduism the new converts were still Hindus or not since the Portuguese were there to conqure, enslave, exploit, and tailor Goa to their own benefit as opposed to any benefit for the people of Goa and that is exactly why they had no desire to seek local opinion and no qualms about violence. Inquisition was probably the most violent event in Goa's history. I would suggest modifying wording to indicate this.67.169.0.250 (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh! Please read carefully before shooting off replies. When I said "they believed in the supremacy of their relegion" I was reffering to the Portuguese, not Hindus. there was a more violent event in goa's history and that was the Massacre of Muslims in 1510. Perhaps you should read a bit of Goa's history instead of advising me to. And why would they bother to seek the opinion of the locals before establishing the inquisition? Where in history have rulers sought permission from their subjects to oppress them? Did the upper castes seek the opinions of the dalits as to how they felt about the caste system? You make me laugh. You are here only to air your own views. You are treating a serious encyclopedia article discussion page as an interactive forum. This is my final reply to any post by you. You may reply as many time sa you like but I will ignore it. And I bet any sensibble editor will do the same.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

An edit war by compulsive reverts. Is this article neutral?

(See comments in prior section also) I am well aware of WP:UNDUE. However I disagree with the gang-up undos to edit out anything that balances the slant of this article. Given the inability of both these people to also discuss specific points of contention while removing edits I will have no option but to dispute the neutrality of the article. Coming to the specific points. Please explain:

1. Why is adding one referenced line, in an entire paragraph discussing that myth, that this account of St. Thomas coming to India is historically disputed is WP:UNDUE. I understand people may continue to hold religious beliefs that are be challenged by historical accounts but Wikipedia is not really the place to propagate those beliefs as history. This version of history (of St. Thomas coming to India) is a local myth--European schools teaching Christian history do not teach St. Thomas in "India" as history. No less than church historian Bishop Stephen Neill, who spent years in India researching the St. Thomas legend, has disputed the historical veracity of this myth. On what basis, other than extreme prejudice at maintaining the article's slant, was this single line edit, pointing out that this the historicity of this is disputed, removed?
2. Secondly, the Joshua Project is a major contemporary initiative for Christian evangelism in India. What makes you remove any reference to this on the grounds of WP:UNDUE? At best you can move it into its own section in the article.

And I would like to remind the eminent editors on this page of a simple Wikipedia courtesy to avoid WP:EDITWAR, that is, for combative editors to think twice before deleting text someone has painstakingly entered and WP:Revert only when necessary. It is better to improve rather than delete. Alas this simple courtesy has not been shown to a single edit that goes contrary to the existing I have made in an attempt to improve and balance this page. I am restoring my original edits. Please feel free to improve these. If you do a revert again, without any discussion of contents, we will need to mark this as a dispute and also dispute the neutrality of this article. I would suggest you review the guidelines on WP:NPOV Puck42 (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You have added that historians claim that to be a myth, but added an article by an IAS officer. Can you explain with apt refs please? You need to be cautious when adding WP:FRINGE. By calling us gang reverts you have failed to assume good faith too. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 20:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While it may not be unreasonable to say that the presence of St. Thomas in South India is disputed, one cannot say that the story is (a) a myth or (b) the story was propagated by missionaries to convert people to christianity. You need to present Reliable Sources that back up the disputed nature of the story. The missionary part will always be, at best, unverifiable original research. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 02:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry , I dont see WP:UNDUE, rather I see WP:BIAS here. Are we to assume that European accounts are necessarily more accurate then Indian ones? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as a European vs Indian account issue. The view that the arrival of St. Thomas in India was invented by missionaries is not something that can be proved and will always remain OR and probably has no place in wikipedia (unless there are respectable academic sources that hypothesize this, in which case it should be included as a hypothesis). Whether St. Thomas actually arrived in India is uncertain and the article can, and should reflect that uncertainty but the belief in his arrival is an important development in Indian christianity that cannot be ignored. Also, short of proving that he never set foot in India, I don't see how it can be labeled a myth.--Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 12:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really, since most Europeans still think that Jesus was a white man. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets get this straight. St Thomas in India is a religious tradition amongst Catholics and Orthodox Christians in India. Religious traditions do not need to be historical (I remember reading this while following - although not participating- in a discussion on having an article on Historical Rama). The claim put by the editor Puck42 is that the tradition is a cooked up myth with an evil plan hidden behind it, is surely not an accepted view in the academic world, be it Europe or India. An IAS officer doesn't qualify as an historian. If the editor can give us good sources and keeping in mind that its from the mainstream, I wouldn't think anyone would oppose him adding those details. Failing which, its surely not worth to be in an encyclopedia. BTW, even Indians do not realise that Christ (or any Jew at Christ's time) should have looked more like an Indian. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 07:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor correction here. St Thomas's indian connection is not a tradition amongst Catholics. More recently , the Pope himself made it very clear. -Bharatveer (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It is amongst Catholics in India (please read what I said earlier). You may want to have a quick browse through of the San Thome Basilica website here. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle#Pope_Benedict_XVI.27s_controversial_statements

.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I shall end replying to troll, but before that, let me remind you that you are quoting wikipedia in wikipedia which is not alowed and second Indian Catholics opposed to the Pope's statement and it was amended. The fact stays that Indian Catholics still hold the tradition that St Thomas as an Apostle of India. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 06:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks User:Wikiality. Please read carefully what I have written - "St Thomas's indian connection is not a tradition amongst Catholics. More recently , the Pope himself made it very clear .Please note again the word used is "Catholics". The WP rule, which you mentioned here has no relevance in this discussion. I cited that section just to make you aware of Pope's concern.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any personal attacks. FYI San Thome Basilica is indeed a Catholic diocese. The diocese still maintains the tradition of St Thomas as Apostle of India through the south. You already had the reference for it. Catholic Encylopedia which analyses the historical verifiability of Thomas legends states, to quote ...and the tradition that it was here that St. Thomas laid down his life is locally very strong. Vatican's view is something that you can quoting, but from the start I've been talking about local (Indian) Catholic tradition along with Saint Thomas Christians. Please quote citations if you have any, that contemporary Indian Catholics refusing Thomas in South India tradition. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 07:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

well, no reason in continuing this discussion.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Add a section on Contemporary Christianity

Noticed that there is no section on contemporary Christianity, other than demographics. It would be good to add a reference to the new Bible that has just been released, that includes references to Indian scriptures. Father Bede Griffith's work is also notable. Perhaps these can come in the acculturation section. Another major contemporary development is the Joshua Project, a largely American Funded push for the conversion of India by aggressive Protestant organizations.Puck42 (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Where does the Joshua Project state that its main aim is conversion of India. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition and non Christians

Now that we have done enough chitchat, i thought I would bring up some WP:RS:

In 1867 it was ordered that on the recommendations of the first provincial inquisition held at Goa (Goa Inquisition) no Christians should keep infidel servants, that the public worship of both Hindus and Muslims should cease, that all heathen residents should attend every alternate Sunday to hear a sermon on the benefits of the Christianity and that children of left orphas should be brought up in Christian faith...Under the pressures of these rules and the unwearing persuasion of the religion, Goa became a city of Christians. -- Goa, Daman, and Diu (India) by R. N. Saksena

It is not proposed here to mention the details of the Goa Inquisition. Suffice it to say that in the name of the religion of peace and love, this tribunal practised cruelties to the extent that every word of theirs was a sentence to death. Their harassment to both Hindus and Christians, while enforcing their laws, drove many of them to migrate to the neighboring territories. Priolkar, the famous historian, if of the opinion that "thousands of Konkani-speaking families, both Hindus and Christians, who are found scattered in various centers of Mysore, Kerala, and Madras today, are the descendants of these emigrants -- Goa, Daman, and Diu (India) by R. N. Saksena

The Inquisition gained momentum and went on to ban Indian musical instruments, the dhoti - the Indian loincloth favored by men, and the chewing of betel leaves - a traditional Indian habit. Hundreds of Hindu temples were either destroyed or forcibly converted into Christian churches. Thousands of Hindu texts were burned with a view to ensuring the supremacy of Roman Catholic texts. -- The Rozabal Line by Shawn Haigins

The priests of the Goan Inquisition set up headquaters in the former sultan's palace. They immediately outlawed Hinduism. Sacred Hindu texts were burned, Hindu music, clothing, and foods were banned. Hindu marriage was outlawed. Violaters were burned at the stake in groups in a ceremony known as auto-da-fe, "act of faith." The strictures of the Inquisition spanned 230 pages. Hindus who confessed their crimes were granted strangulation before they were burned. So many adults were killed that orphans abounded on the Konkan Coast. The Catholic Church raised these children Catholic... African slaves were imported to the colony. Led in gangs first by Jesuits, and later by Franciscans, the slaves descended on villages, capturing Hindus, rubbing raw pork in their mouths, thereby rendering the people outcasts from their own religion. The priests conducted a mass baptism of these untouchables on January 25 of each year, the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. -- The Konkans by Tony D'Souza

Hope this settles it. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you , but this is Talk:Christianity in India not Talk: Goa Inquisition. Again , please stick to the topic and stop treating Wikipedia as a forum. Wikipedia is not therapy. You may kindly discuss the relevant section on the relevant article page. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

So Goa Inquisition is nothing to do with Christianity in India? Not sure why you are so ashamed of it hundreds of years after the fact. Most things do have a positive and negative aspects and usually for WP:NPOV, we cover them both and it certainly does give a level of confidence in the article and makes in more genuine. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignored above chat as per WP:THERAPY --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I have removed the sentence The states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu in South India and Arunachal Pradesh in North-East India account for 60% of India's total Christian population.
The reason is the Lead should never contain contentious claims which are uncited. People can readd it in the lead once it is sourced. Moved it to Demographics section. Regards, Kensplanet (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

DELETING TALKPAGE

Deepak D'Souza is deleting parts of discussion, which are against his povs. I request admins to look into this.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I discuss cricket here? or nuclear physics? no. The talk page of a particular article is to discuss only those matter which are relvant to the article. You anon friend has converted this page into Talk:Goa Inquisition. Anyone can see that he/she is not interested in the topic at hand but simply in treating it as a forum. Please take the matter to ANI if you feel so strongly about it. I would really like to see what the admins have to say about this. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Don't try to judge other WP editors views. It is not for you to decide that goa inquisition cannot be discussed here. I also understand that this is not the FIRST time you are editing an article discussion page.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by " I also understand that this is not the FIRST time you are editing an article discussion page". Using CAPS is equivalent to SHOUTING. So perhaps you should follow your own adivce and read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The guidlines allow editing other's comments in case of "Removing personal attacks and incivility. " and "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". This article is not about the Inquisistion. It is about Chrisitianity in India. Please dont take one fragment from history and treat it as the entire issue. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have seen from your previous edits, that you have deleted discussion/ part of a discussion from talkpage earlier also ( there is at least once instance). You are still clinging to your belief that discussions can be deleted, if it does not suit your povs, which I feel is against WP:guidelines. If you feel that a certain section is WP:Undue, you should try to discuss it here why you feel it is so. It is not good to completely "censor" the discussion completely, saying it is irrelevant.

-Bharatveer (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of disccusing my history of edits you should be discussing about the topic in question. Neither anons "discussions" nor your complaints are related to the topic. And when it comes to respecting talk page guidelines, the preacher should practice what he preaches. Do you have anything to add anything usefull or are you going to turn this into a complaint page about me. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing, please stop harping that I am deleting talk page discussions "based on my povs". I have clearly mentioend the guidlines above which allow me to do that, not "my povs" which I always leave aside when editing Wikipedia. If you feel I have violated WP guidlines you may defineletly take it to ANI. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop giving instructions and try to comply with WP guidelines which says deleting discussion is not a good thing. I dont intend to take this complaint anywhere, I just want you to stop deleting discussions.-Bharatveer (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, please practice what you preach! You have been giving me instructions to do this and that and what not when the guidlines clearly allow me to do what I have done. Stop giving orders yourself. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Any one who is seeing this discussion will understand that. FYI the text which you had deleted out of your pov have been restored now in the page now.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)