Talk:Christian mission

The following paragraph was added a few weeks ago at the end of the article. Largely intelligible due to poor English, it contains though some aspects of criticism which might need incorporation in more appropriate places within the article. I have therefore addded it here for whoever to do with whatever canbe done.

However, the mass conversions made by these missionaries have led to Westernization, cultural destruction, destructions of minor tribal religions, killings, suicides and internal displeasure from many people. According to one source, when a man converted to Christianity in order to attain priesthood, his father got so angry and killed himself. This, however, according to the pope, that killing another man whether by direct or indirect means is considered a very great sin. Millions of people, however, responded to what the missionaries have done and formed movements and organizations either to stop the missionaries from converting tribal group or to preach Christian tribal groups in another religion.

Refdoc 10:39, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A paragraph of concern

I'm troubled by this paragraph

As Christianity has spread to other peoples, it has simultaneously declined in most of the sending nations. This generation witnesses the mission nations returning missionaries to the sending nations, to evangelize and to establish churches, there. However, at the same time, their atrocities have greatly contributed to the extinction, or decline of indigenious religions, customs and culture. Examples include the tribes in North-east India, Korea and many Asian countries.

The word "atrocities" is surely a big fat POV? Can I put "activities" in its place?

Nor do the third and fourth sentences hang together well with the first two sentences. For instance, "their" would naturally refer to the mission nations, but I think whoever put in these sentences meant the sending nations.

Stolzi 18:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Name of Article

Why is the name "Mission (Christian)"? It does not include missions of all Christianity. The scope of the article is too narrow to have such a broad term in its name.

What do you suggest? KHM03 11:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The name of the article is all right. It does need to be expanded to include "mission" from the standpoint of all branches of Christianity and all of its meanings. For example, in the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, a "mission" often refers to a new congregation or a congregation that is unable to support itself.Rockhopper10r 21:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Final paragraph of introduction

I modified the final paragraph of the intro in order to make the article conform better to Wikipedia standards. Specifically, qualified statement that "Most missionaries [promote secular behavior]... because [it] promotes the glory of God." Also modified broad claim about "standard" Christian doctrine causin "most missions to give aid without requiring conversion." Feel free to discuss. ;)

Izau 10:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Izau

the recent addition of Possible Examples

I fail to see a real connection with the recent addition of the Possible Examples and the focus of the rest of the page. I don't want to just remove them based on my opinion though. What do others think?

Sweepthelegnate 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Sweepthelegnate

Perhaps the wording could be reworded better and even included under the mission(station) and not mission (christian) if more apt.

Sometimes, they have damaged those cultures and led natives to acculturation, notably in the extinction of traditional religions such as

I am no expert but doesn't Palm Island fit the catagory???

Phenss, in my opinion the mission stations you linked to isn't really covered in the scope of the article as of yet. And I agree, with you that they would better fit under a misson stations page. Why don't you move them there.

Sweepthelegnate 05:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Sweepthelegnate

Expanding this page

I think this page should be expanded to include a broader definition of missions beyond "a church planting movement" I am going to start working toward that end. If there are any ideas, objections, or areas you feel should be expanded leave it here.

Sweepthelegnate 01:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely a problem here. We need to get get the hierarchy of meanings right so that "mission" in the sense of sending missionaries out flows out of the greater mission of the church. I'm having similar problems with religious ministry (Christian) because whoever started that article was focused on the idea of specific ministries and then usd that as a springboard for talking about models of ministry. The two articles need to work together, to a degree; in the big picture ministry is about what Christians do to further the ministry of the church. But both words have this collection of derivative meanings which somehow have to be fitted in coherently. Mangoe 11:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

Putting the headings "Negative effects" and "Positive effects" is hardly a neutral point of view. For example, the sentence "This can lead to conflict between persons' identity as Christians and their indigenious ethnic culture and rites, which are often rooted in animistic rituals and beliefs." can hardly be objectively said to be a negative effect. In some people's opinions it might be, but in others it might be considered a positive effect. If someone questions his belief in polygamy, for example, then I would consider that a positive effect. --203.122.201.194 10:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Listing the Aztecs under "Positive effects" seems rather bizarre to me, as their culture was pretty much wiped out and the population declined from 15 million to 2 million in the first 60 years after the conquest. There also needs to be a mention about disease spreading in general by missionaries under the "Negative effects" section (smallpox, STD's etc.) Tomtefarbror 14:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• How is the first, not affected by the missionaries, while the second is? Seems, contradictory. Both should be attributed to the Spanish in general. Singling, out missionaries is kind of difficult. 74.137.230.39 22:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Too big, too wide in scope: needs breaking up

I suggest this article be broken up into more specific pages. It is too unwieldy and the context, culture and methods of Christian missions has changed so drastically that it's impossible to put modern aspects and issues together with historical ones without making it huge. There are too many varieties of mission organisations, too many different approaches geographically and historically. I think there needs to be a main overview, then regional pages each with their own history. And I think that issues, particularly critical cultural issues should have their own pages. "Mission (Christian)" is not an Article, it's a Category. — Rexparry sydney 11:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Christian Mission is more than evangelism

My suggestion is that evangelism be considered a component in a much larger image/vision of the Christian Mission (Misso Dei), not the whole focus of the article -- a schema for organizing logic could look something like this:

Christian Mission includes (and likely not limited) to:

-Evangelism Scriptural sources include MK 1:15,; Acts 1:8, MT 28:19-20 (church planting stuff a part of this)

-Seeking Justice, Love , PeaceScriptural sources include EX 23:6; MT 12:11ff, MT 23:1ff; 1 COR:1ff (this is this the social justice componant of mission -- preference for the poor and suffering after the example of Christ (John 15: 1-4) and through the gifts of the Spirit -- standing with the poor and oppressed is Christian mission! The social justice component is HUGE for contemporary Christians).

- Healing and Wholeness: Praying and "working" for the healing and wholeness of ALL of creation (earth, environment,human creatures, all creatures, illness of/in all creation -- all aspects of creation in need of healing) are aspects of Christian mission.

Evangelism only is too narrow an approach to the topic in the contemporary context -- think abolitionists, sufferettes, World Vision and such.

I agree. This article is appallingly narrow in its focus and would be better as an article about Evangelism. Not even a mention of David Bosch's Transforming Mission (widely regarded as the definitive text on the subject) - Ironically the article on Bosch does link here. Ray Ellis (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Paragraphs have been added to the article on the controversial aspects of evangelizing in non western countries from the POV of many in the third world. They are from the main Missionary article. It was proposed to move them here to this article which is specifically about Christian missionarizing. I think it is only fair to include the views of what is probably the majority of natives in these countries (I say majority since these countries have not converted en-masse to Christianity). Yet these opposing views have been continually deleted for a variety of reasons. But at base what it smacks of is censorship - evangelical Christians don't seem to want people to know other points of view about missionaries. That's neither honest nor fair. Please allow other views to be heard unmolested, otherwise it just looks like they are right that Christians are intolerant of other religions. Hereis an extensive discussion archived from the talk page of the Missionary article. 4.246.204.27 04:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a good reason for it's removal (unreferneced, not NPOV, etc...). --RucasHost 09:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what you're talking about. It's quite well referenced. "I'm sure there's a good reason" is not a good reason. I've restored the section though from the history it would appear to bean uphill battle against the dishonest. 69.107.224.129 16:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone calling himself Orangemike has removed a paragraph from the controversy section which contains information about two movies that fit in the section. He says that they are POV. If factual accounts are POV then so be it. Knud Rasmussen himself (an actual person) said "Once primitive man has met the so-called civilized world there is no way back" [1]. You might check out this Wiki article on the subject Siqqitiq. "Rasmussen, a Greenlander, and his Danish companion, PeterFreuchen, travelled from Greenland to Siberia, living among Inuit and documenting their culture and the effects of western encroachment" [2]. As the other, The Mosquito Coast is fiction I suppose you can remove that though I think it would be overly officious to do so. Anyway I'm putting them back in. 63.196.193.1 04:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Mission

I believe that a much simpler definition of a Christian Mission should be given before even attempting to reference the Lausanne Congress, that would work wonders towards removing the strong POV of this article.

I propose something along the lines of "A Christian Mission is a group of people of the Christian faith that visit a non christian nation or region to promote their religious views upon people of different beliefs". Schicchi (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say "among" rather than "upon"! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Any other opinions? Should we go ahead and change the introduction? Schicchi (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the "among". However, this only captures one aspect of Christian mission (albeit the historically prominent one). The other aspect, which is increasing, is interfaith dialogue - especially in the Christian ecumenical movement (see Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement) Interfaith dialogue happens in Christian countries as well as in non-Christian countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwikatze (talk • contribs) 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal

I've removed some material sourced to various sources that don't meet our requirements as spelled out in WP:RS. These sources include stephen-knapp.com, christianaggression.com, organiser.org, ucanews.com and so on. Please defend the use of each of these sources in the light of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV if you wish to restore them. Relata refero (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Since YOU are the one insisting on the deletions YOU need to spell exactly out why you feel each of those sources do not meet the standards as you see them. It's not up to me to defend something that the community of Wikipedians approved by have letting stand for a long time now. 63.196.193.253 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I will have to leave for a while but in the interim here are some comments, please don't remove any more content until this is resolved. The stephen-knapp.com site has its own news sources which you can click on. I count five. Similarly for christianaggression.com. It is a site with links to RS news articles. The organiser.org article is a commentary piece. You'll note that in the wiki article is says that "Hindus have claimed that these organizations persecute and slaughter Hindus by the thousands". Notice the word "claimed" here. It does not state that as fact, a critical difference. However this is what many Hindus believe and as such has a right to be heard. I also note that while you removed the info on the Hindu charges of Christian militancy, you had no problem letting stand the entirety of the Christian counter-claims section and its many links which contains similar charges leveled back at Hindus. If you want to remove the one (charges of violence) you'll have to remove the other. Here is an extensive discussion archived from the talk page of the Missionary article where this section originated. Please review before making further deletions. 63.196.193.253 (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable material can be removed at any time. The only parts of the article I removed were those sourced to unreliable sources. If you feel that unbalances the article, feel free to remove other parts or rewrite the section.

stephen-knapp.com is unacceptable, no matter how many news articles he referenees. Ditto christianaggression.

The Organiser.org article might be acceptable, but we have to discuss the wording first. Relata refero (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That the Christians of Northern India have been agitating for a separate Christian state and resort to terrorism is no secret in India [3]. Here's a manifesto [4]. "It is estimated that more than 50,000 people have been killed in such fighting since 1948, including some 10,000 deaths in 15 years of fighting in the Assam state" says this congressional report. According to a Yahoo news article dated October 2, 2004 titled Christian Terrorists Kill 44, Wound 118 in Attacks in Northeast India [5] "The armed insurgency in Nagaland began soon after much of the local population converted to Christianity. Many militant groups, seeking to secede from India to form an independent Christian state, are funded and armed by the Southern Baptist Church. Some of the groups such as the National Liberation Front of Tripura have been involved in a campaign of 'gunpoint conversions' and 'ethnic cleansing' of native non-Christians, which has left over 50,000 dead and many more refugees over the past two decades." Here's some more info Evangelical Missionary war on HindusWill Hinduism survive the present Christian offensive?. Here someone posted a copy of a letter from a Christian minister against Hindus. Also [6]. A group called the South Asia Terrorism Portal which hosts articles on various terrorist groups says that one of the NLPT's goals is "Forcible conversion of tribal cadres/civilians to Christianity" [7]. Here's a long list of "Incidents involving National Liberation Front of Tripura". Here is an article from the periodical Christian Century that lays out some of the many injustices and double standards that Hindus must endure vs Christians and why they are angry about it. The author states "The American Baptist Churches/USA not only maintains close relations with the 2 million tribal population, but it even encourages the converts there 'to battle with India for their cultural and religious survival.' This is tantamount to urging the Nagas to view India as another country that is oppressing them. In his article 'Abuses in Nagaland' (Christian Century, July 15, 1998) the executive director of the ABC's international ministries, John Sundquist, even states that Nagas are a vital Christian nation facing severe pressure from the Indian government". Now note this article 'Church backing Tripura rebels'. It's obvious that bad things are happening in India in the name of Christianity. To remove that information would be censorship. Stephen-knapp.com can be replaced with some of the above I'd think. I replaced quoted material from Christianaggression.org with a link, however it is a valid, notable and important site with links to news articles. Because it links to articles that aren't flattering to Christians in India does not make those articles unreliable. 63.196.193.123 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of these militant movements and tacit support provided to them from elsewhere. I would like to point out, however, that (a) they all have separate articles, where this discussion could more profitably be moved (b) That WP:V and WP:RS are non-negotiable. Please find sources that meet our standards. I'm sure a little work some of the material to be reinstated, if not here, then in more appropriate doing so will allow articles. Relata refero (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In particular, I don't think that Christian Century or hindujsgruti.com meet our requirements; the SATP links - which I am accepting for the moment - don't talk about missions; and indymedia is generally ruled out on most articles. Relata refero (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. First, Wikipedia encourages the use of controversial information on the same page as the main article. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each ... When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page" Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (emphasis mine). Now, you previously brought up the NPOV issue (though you've left it out of your last two comments). Note the following:

From Wikipedia:Describing points of view:

"Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy ... Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects."

The Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial has a good subsection (Information Supression) which illustrates the issue here:

"A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV ... Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds) ... Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability".

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ similarly states under Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete:

"The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V".

Your suggestion to remove this controversial information to some nether region would only make it that much harder to find. This removal idea is not something you previously stated, why now? This, and the fact that you had no problem with the anti-Hindu "Christian counter-claims" section make me suspect your motives for this whole debate. Second, you also say "That WP:V and WP:RS are non-negotiable". Certainly, however your likes and dislikes of certain information and personal feelings about what is and isn't WP:V and WP:RS are not the be all and end all of Wikipedia policy. Your ultra narrow view of verifiability and reliable sources seems to me to be nothing more than trying to find some excuse for censorship. For example, how is "Christian Century" not RS? Third, I had not advocated the inclusion of all of the above material - though I think that most of it is fine. I said that "some" of it could be used as more reliable source material. I have demonstrated a willingness to compromise, you haven't. Fourth, since you're sure that with "a little more work" the information could meet your high standards why not do some of it yourself instead of sitting back and directing? Please excuse my tone, but as the history shows it's been an uphill battle to keep the controversial aspects of Christian missonaryism in the article. 63.196.193.197 (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't happen to think that these aspects improve the article, which is why I'm not breaking my back looking for them. Simply put, if you want them in there, you have a right to put them in there to the degree that they are notable views (so not too much that they unbalance the article and violate WP:UNDUE) as long as you source them per the requirements in WP:V and WP:RS. I had n"no problems" with the "counter-claims" merely because they were appropriately sourced, not because I approved of their content or thought they were relevant.

If you want to use articles from Christian Century, on closer look I suppose its acceptable given that it seems to have an editorial board and long history and this is a Christianity-related issue.

About moving information to "nether regions", I'm afraid that if its not directly relevant to missions, it should be on a separate page. That's part of WP:SYNTH, and is also non-negotiable. Relata refero (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Call me silly but I happen to think that the fact that Christian missionary organizations have engendered such controversy and division in target countries is notable and "directly relevant" to this missionary article. The world has noticed what is happening and so also should this encyclopedia. Above you say, "I'm afraid that if its not directly relevant to missions, it should be on a separate page". Missions in the article do not mean simply buildings but missionary activity. You'll note that in the introduction of the article it states "Christian missions can more broadly mean any activity in which Christians are involved for world evangelization". This article details what some think are the positive aspects of missionaryism, and that's fine, however the controversy surrounding it, its more negative aspects also has a right to exist, and on the same page and that's "non-negotiable". Again, from above "the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page" Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. About WP:UNDUE, you'll also note that the amount of the article that supports missionaryism is longer than the controversy section. 63.196.193.158 (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources talking about terrorism that do not link mission activity and terrorism are not directly relevant to this article. There's no way around that according to WP:SYNTH. Relata refero (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming that none of the information provided demonstates a link between Christian missionaryism and terrorism? In any case, even if you think there isn't, the Indians who actually live there (among others) think that there is and that makes it inclusion worthy. 63.196.193.158 (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that none of the links provided here are useful, because they do not make the link explicit. There is one BBC News report that I remember seeing, but even though that talked about links between the Southern Baptist Conference and a particular terrorist group, it didn't say the intermediaries were missionaries. Relata refero (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be jumping through hoops trying to find a reason to delete this information. Fortunately Wikipedia is not a court of law where one must establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt before inclusion, which you seem to be demanding here. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" Wikipedia:Verifiability. Remember, again, the information is not being presented as fact but as a charge notable due the fact of its importance and the fact that many people believe that there is a firm connection between Christian missionaryism and terrorism. Now you stated above "Simply put, if you want them in there, you have a right to put them in there to the degree that they are notable views". Okay. Says Wikipedia:Notability "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines". Note the words "Peer recognition" here. A reliable source does not mean that it must be from a western media source. "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact" Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments. The fact that 50,000 people have died in this proselytization fueled battle is certainly important and thus notable and its notability alone is sufficient reason for inclusion.

By the way, though often the case, a "missionary" in India is not necessarily a foreigner. A Christian missionary in India is any Christian proselytizer, or one who works to convert others to one's religion. Definition: "someone who attempts to convert others to a particular doctrine or program" [8]. The fact that the National Liberation Front of Tripura, "wants to convert all tribespeople in the state to Christianity" [9] makes them, by definition, missionarys, albeit terrorist ones. This article, from Mainstreamweekly.com discusses where, in a country that's dirt poor, Indian guerillas are getting their funding. The international missionary org, Baptist World Alliance, for one, has ties to the baptists in the area [10]. Check out this missionary webpage, and you can easily see the underlying disrespect for the native beliefs that is fueling much of the fighting. "Yet another commendable project now underway in India is the FT- 5000 effort on the part of India Every Home Crusade. FT stands for 'Final Thrust' while 5,000 denotes the number of laborers who will be placed in the 4,000 districts in India. This project, under the leadership of B.A.G. Prasad, has as its ultimate goal: 'To plant 250,000 churches or Christ Groups in the villages and towns where there are no churches. Also to hand over the new believers for nurture and fellowship to Bible-believing churches if these are located close by'". Here's a site which has a list of links to many such statements made by Christian churches. Note the presumptous name of this UK based missionary organization, "India for Christ Ministries". It's just this sort of dismissive of native traditions, customs and indigenous religious beliefs arrogance that is antagonizing natives. The book Vindicated by Time: The Niyogi Committee Report On Christian Missionary Activities could be included in links I think. By the way, it's interesting to read what Ghandi thought of Christian missionaries [11]. Charles Dickens said "Missionaries are perfect nuisances and leave every place worse than they found it" [12]. Sorry, but any way you slice it, this infomation deserves to be in the article. 63.196.193.96 (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, previously you stated " I had n"no problems" with the "counter-claims" merely because they were appropriately sourced, not because I approved of their content or thought they were relevant". Did you actually check those links? I decided to. 1) the statement "Missionaries, however, say that "false reports" of forced conversion are a key weapon in the Hindu Nationalist fight against both Christian missionaries and native-born Christian Indians" is not sourced. Link # 17 does not say anything like that. 2) the second link, # 18, goes to a subscription page not an article. 3) link # 21 does not contain the quoted statement. 4) the statement before link # 22 is not borne out by the link. Note, I am not disputing the claims made in this section, they may have been jumbled. But I have to wonder about the seeming double standard of your exacting qualifications for the other links we've been discussing... 63.196.193.96 (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

After lengthy discussion I have made some changes including the replacement of the stephen-knapp.com site. 63.196.193.96 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please listen: I agree with much of your analysis, but per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH we can't put it in the article. You have to find sources that are reliable by our standards making the same points as you explicitly. Without that we just can't move forward. Relata refero (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a new one. I wondered when you were going to bring out WP:OR. So let's see now, so far you've claimed that this section and links violate WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and warned about WP:UNDUE. You seem to be on a mission here. Please don't feel that I'm attacking but let's just review. First, one of the links you originally removed was an internal link to "Niyogi Committee Report On Christian Missionary Activities" [13], why? In your explanation you stated "I've removed some material sourced to various sources that don't meet our requirements as spelled out in WP:RS" and "The only parts of the article I removed were those sourced to unreliable sources". Hmmm, that internal link - which doesn't quote but merely cites another Wikipedia article - doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements? Odd, but I guess it makes sence if one is trying to chip a way at the section. The other link you removed for not being reliable I've replaced with one that I believe is. You also stated that I could "feel free to ... rewrite the section" and "Simply put, if you want them in there, you have a right to put them in there to the degree that they are notable views...". However, you later decided that "I don't happen to think that these aspects improve the article" and "this discussion could more profitably be moved" somewhere else. Anyway, let's see what sources I've left in or provided in the disputed section in order: a reference to The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi with volume and page number, organiser.org, news.bbc.co.uk, a Wikipedia link, another bbc news link, satp.org, another organiser.org link, one from christianaggression.org which I've defended, an fpc.state.gov link and one going to a Christian Century article. Now you've stated that "The Organiser.org article might be acceptable", "the SATP links - which I am accepting for the moment" and after initially rejecting Christian Century you later stated "on closer look I suppose its acceptable". So where's the problem? Well, I guess you did reverse yourself again with "I am saying that none of the links provided here are useful" *sigh*. Aside from throwing around a bunch of acronyms (which, by the way, Wikipedia discourages), you've provided no substance to your arguments. You originally stated "Please defend the use of each of these sources in the light of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV if you wish to restore them". I've now done that. But again, your persistance combined with your demonstrated lack of an application of anything close to the same rigourous standards for the Christian counter-claims section makes it look like you have an agenda here to censor. To my mind you are indistinguishable from a troll, who is merely here to disrupt. Please desist. 63.196.193.172 (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Still at it huh? Again you delete a Wikipedia internal reference, Niyogi Committee Report On Christian Missionary Activities plus another Wiki link to the article, Nagaland Rebels, both of which are related to missionary activity in India. Additionally you have deleted a BBC news source, Hindu preacher killed by Tripura rebels. What, not RS enough for you? You also deleted sources you previously approved, satp.org and organizer.org. Next you say that I "misrepresented" a state department source. How's that? I simply quoted them. Where is the misrepresentation? Then you removed the link to christianaggression.org with two words, "non-RS". About your previous comment "the SATP links - which I am accepting for the moment" which statement you made on the 23rd of February. I see though that you had no problem using the site yourself when it suited your purpose on the 18th in another article as here. Another editor, KBN, apparently has had the same problem with you, "I wonder what your views of Evangelists in India are, or whether you know of what activities they are involved in India, and whether you know that Hinduism is not an exclusive religion. I have tons of incidents I can cite but they will deleted by you or Relata Refero as a biased source, (the irony)" [14]. If I need to I will make a complaint. Perhaps you will win since there is an inherent bias against unregistered users, however both you and I know what you're doing. 63.196.193.175 (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A link to the Organiser is still in there, we needn't use two, that would be undue weight. The BBC report doesn't support the sentence its supposed to be a reference for at all. We cant use internal links as references. The SATP information is grossly misrepresented, as all it says is that some people told the police they were unhappy that others in the organisation were forcibly converting people, and that has nothing at all to do with missionaries. That 50,000 people have died is irrelevant unless State tells us that has something to do with missionaries. OK? Relata refero (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What, no defense of your deletion of a state department source? Undue weight to use another Organiser link? Did you happen to count the counter links in the "counter-claims" section, not to mention the rest of the pro-missionary article? About your contention that "The BBC report doesn't support the sentence its supposed to be a reference for at all", "The government in India's north-eastern state of Tripura says it has evidence that the state's Baptist Church is involved in backing separatist rebels ... The Baptist Church in Tripura was set up by missionaries from New Zealand 60 years ago". In other words there is a connection. No connection between Christian missionaryizing and the 50,000 dead. Yeah right. Reverted. The rest of your strained reasoning only shows your apparent anti-Hindu bias. Additionally, I am going to add another link to missionary activity and violence. Note, a source does not have to show a direct connection between missionaries and violence. e.g. a missionary throwing a bomb, although they cetainly are fueling the fire with their anti-Hindu rhetoric and infusions of money to the area. The subject here is violence, etc. related to missionary work. 63.196.193.175 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there is no ban on citing Wikipedia within Wikipedia articles: "We advise special caution when using Wikipedia as a source for research projects. However, we are also confident that Wikipedia provides good overviews of most topics that it covers" Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, "Owing to the radical openness of Wikipedia, decisions about referencing articles must be made on an article-by-article basis. If one does choose to cite a Wikipedia article, references should identify a specific version of an article by providing the date and time it was created" Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. As far as removing them simply because they reference other Wikipedia articles, uh, probably most all Wikipedia articles do this. It's quite acceptable. Type in any article, do you see those blue words, those are links to other Wikipedia articles. 63.196.193.175 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am rewording a disputed sentence to more accurately reflect the articles cited. 63.196.193.21 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Note, a source does not have to show a direct connection between missionaries and violence. e.g. a missionary throwing a bomb, although they cetainly are fueling the fire with their anti-Hindu rhetoric and infusions of money to the area." No doubt. Until you can find a sources stating as much, I am afraid you are still conducting OR when you rely on reliable sources that don't make the connection, such as the BBC and the State Department. (For example, "founded by missionaries 60 years ago" and "recently accused of supporting the NLFT" is not a linkage in the least.) Relata refero (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Giving Up

As I stated in the Religious violence in India talk page, I'm giving up as I do not have the time nor the inclination to fight a ridiculous and endless war with bozos who can just keep on deleting, reverting obfuscating ad-infinitum and rationalizing it with every spurious idea they can think up. That's the major shortcoming with Wikipedia, and it's unfortunately inherent to wikis. The information presented and decided on is dependent upon how many people one particular side in a debate can muster - it's truth by numbers/votes, and it's ultimately decided upon by who has the power on a particular Wikipedia page and his/her particular partisan bent NOT by the actual facts. It also depends on who outlasts who in the reversion wars. That's why Wikipedia is said to be unreliable for citiation. Sad. For those who may want to view the facts that have been removed and compare it to some future version, here is a link [15]. 63.196.193.225 (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I frequently have thought the same as you, actually. I don't think that anyone has more 'power' on this page than anyone else, of course. Relata refero (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of V.O.M. is unclear, it should read Voice of the Martyrs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.111.11 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad the Controversy/criticisms section up again

The controversy/critcism section was up there when the article was new. In the middle, there was revert war, where people with no Wikipedia ID kept deleting the criticism section until I gave up. I kept explaining this article need a criticism section to be neutral. This was the old criticism section, I think this should be used again in this new article.

Christian missionaries have been accused of destroying many cultures and religions thus destroying cultural and religion diversity found in the world.[[16]]

Tarikur (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Great Commission

shouldn't the great commission be mentioned? Rds865 (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

effects of missionaries

it is fact that missionaries have changed cultures. an example is Hawaii, where they introduced the MuuMuu. Also, however, Hawaii was influenced by secular means as well. Missionaries often try to improve the life of the natives as well. And have tried to spread other Western ideas. Christianity had much success partly due to it providing freedom for women. Also, no mention is made on how missionaries adapt to the host culture. This article mentions criticisms about Christianity changing cultures, with the assumption that the change is bad. Or does it mention outlawing evangelism is prohibiting freedom of religion. Rds865 (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)