Talk:Goa Inquisition

The page has reverted

can someone return it to a less biased representation of history?

why the fuss?

European Christians are the biggest bastards of history. They had absolutely no problem in massacring heathens and infidels, much like their Abrahamic brothers, the Muslims, are doing today. Is it really that "DUBIOUS" to insist that white PORTUGUESE Christians were above massacring brown-skinned heathens?

No, it is not. Europeans, for the vast majority of their Christian history, have been racist, bigoted, colonial, oppressive, and whatever else can be considered wrong with a culture at a particular time.

Yeah, you're right - because something is plausible, it is therefore also true. Thanks for clearing that up!

What the .... f.....k guys...... peace love and light

Describing suffering

Consider the following:

In describing any suffering caused by human brutality or indifference (such as the Irish Potato Famine, The Holocaust, the Trail of Tears or whatever) anything that could possibly could be construed as exaggeration, hyperbole or inaccuracy only gives power to the false belief that nothing very bad happened at all.

House of Scandal 11:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What is your point exactly?Almost everything written was referenced with books. The ones referenced with potentially partisan sources should be removed, this is correct, but the missionary removed even the ones referenced with published books. Rumpelstiltskin223 11:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is basically unsubstantiated political and religiuous propaganda. And even when it provides references is to anti-catholic sources (e.g., protestant, hindu, etc.). The historical fact is that the Inquisition did not have a mandate to deal with non-catholic issues. It is a fact that is has been highly denigrated by the British as it was mainly against the reform -and successfuly so. It preserved the Catholic countries from the Christian religious wars - still persistent for example in Northern Ireland,which resulted in the death of millions. The Catholic countries were speared this holocaust at a relatively small price. It is a shame that wikipedia is loosing all its credibility due to biased, non scientifc contributions like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.24.99.166 (talk • contribs).

As far as I can see a reference to Priolkar was added on Dec 7 (see this diff), and before that only websites were used as sources--for instance, see this older version. It's not difficult to conclude that the article is founded on questionable information, drawn from websites that we can't be sure are trustworthy.

It's also important to note that the reference to Priolkar that appeared in the article is not actually to his book, but to a review in the Journal of the American Oriental Society. This makes the reference somewhat suspect, and at this point it's reasonable to think that none of the editors of this article have actually read the book. As I've noted above, Priolkar has been praised for his even-handed treatment of the Goa Inquisition, and should be one of the prime sources for the article. But someone has to actually read the book first. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the page has been unprotected without agreement, and the same inflammatory Hate Material - which no-one here has been able to substantiate or provide any references for, has been put in AGAIN. Can something be done about this please? Xandar 12:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Information verified. At last this one: Goa, into the mainstream by R.N. Saksena P24 chapter 2 Historical Background.Book is endorsed by The Indian Council of Social Science Research. Saksena is prof at department of Sociology, Aligarh Muslim University

It is not supposed here to mention the details of Goa Inquisition.Suffice to say that in the name of religion of peace and love, this tribunal [of the Goa Inquisition] practised cruelties to the extent that every word of theirs was a sentence of death. their harassment to both Hindus and Christians, while enforcing their laws, drove many of them to migrate to the neighbouring territories. With these activities, the Portuguese made their headway and by the force of Cross and sword they became successful in establishing their rule in the territory of Goa.

Rumpelstiltskin223 14:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

More, same book, same page:

It is at this time that St Francis Xavier also arrived in Goa, who made many conversions."In the same period, the religious orders, specially the Francisians, Dominicans and Jesuits became more active in Portuguese India. Under the eccelesiastical pressure, the religious policy developed rapidly. It was ordered that on the recommendation of the first provincial inquisition held in 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 Christianity..."

Verified.Thaa Rumpelstiltskin223 14:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The above (from Rumplestiltskin) is nowhere near a reputable academic source for the allegations. It is an opinionated piece of POV comment, written not even by a historian but a Sociologist. Even this does not have any specifics, and is certainly no legitimate corroboration for the hate claims made in the article.

Only facts that can be verified from reputable sources can be in the article - especially when they are such libellous allegations.

I have listed the unverified claims above. No one - especially not Rumplestiltskin has produced any reputable material to verify them. This is just hate propaganda by people with an agenda. Xandar 14:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What bullshit!Saksena is prof at department of Sociology, Aligarh Muslim University. A notable source that satisfied WP:V. Please keep bullcrap off wikipedia please!Rumpelstiltskin223 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Saksena probably meets WP:RS, but I don't see how the quotes provided verify much of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I will get the Priolkar book today. In the meantine, Xandar is vandalizing the article by removing all sourced comments, including the Saksena quote that is directly referenced in the article. This is his pattern that he repeated before and he is being disruptive. Rumpelstiltskin223 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Saksena is listed in the book as A historian in the department of sociology so he is qualified in this field.Rumpelstiltskin223 16:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumleltskiltskin. You are the one vandalising this article, with your unsourced hate allegations. Sending me messages threatening to have me removed from the Wikipedia will not alter this. You have NOT been able to source any of the hate allegations that have been removed from the article, and which you keep putting back in without agreement. I have challenged you to prove these allegations and you have not provided anything. Also please stop posting personal abuse here. Any bullcrap in this article comes from you. Xandar 19:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Xandar. You are the one vandalising this article, with your unsourced hate allegations. I request that you cease and desist from editting wikipedia. You atittude and behavior are inapproriate for this sort of project. You have not been able to continue to be productive in this environment. Your actions cause discourse and keep wikipedia from people a reputable source for users all over the world. I suggest you go make peace with jesus christ and read the bible. through the teachings of jesus christ, only then will you be able to make peace with yourself and the lord. Until then, I request that you do not vandalise this article. good luck, my friend. rule with fairness my son and may god be with you.--D-Boy 21:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert war

User:Bakasuprman just reverted some edits by User:212.140.128.142 with the summary "rvv banned sock troll". I can see why 212.140.128.142 is suspected of being a sock; but I don't see any bans or blocks. Has this user in fact been banned or blocked?

Also, I would urge everyone to stop referring to vandalism, because it's clear that this is a content dispute, not vandalism. It might be a good idea to remember the three-revert rule also. At this point I think it might be a good idea to seek some form of mediation or other dispute resolution; the way things are going, the page might get protected pretty soon. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

212.140.128.142 is a sock of Xandar or CC80. Rumpelstiltskin223 22:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That might be true, but until you get an admin to agree with you and he's blocked, I don't think it's a good idea to revert his edits for that reason. Might be a better idea to post to WP:ANI or request a checkuser. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Baka was correct in the rv. it was blatent vandalism.--D-Boy 23:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Baka was incorrect in stating that 212.140.128.142 had been banned. He (and you) are also incorrect in calling this vandalism--it's a content dispute. Content disputes aren't vandalism. 212.140.128.142's edits might be disruptive, and he might be a sock--but this isn't vandalism. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it is a violation of WP:POINT at leasst. He clearly has an agenda. Also, removal of referenced material (particularly the Saksena quote, which is established in my reproduction above) can be called vandalism, but you may disagree with that assessment. If you give me some hours I will get the Priolkar book.Rumpelstiltskin223 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, he's got an agenda, and I don't think he's pursuing it constructively, but that accusation could be directed at you, as well as at Baka and D-boy. It would be better if everyone could be calmer, stop accusing each other of vandalism or hate speech, and hit the revert button less often--it really won't hurt to edit more slowly. Besides, I think everyone shares the goal of finding reliable sources for everything in the article, and getting the Priolkar book should really help with that. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have obtained the Priolkar book. The entire book explains in point-by-point detail how Hindus, Muslims and Jews were persecuted and murdered during the Inquisition, as well as historical background of the portuguese conquests where hundreds of Hindu temples were destroyed, Hindu women mass-raped, Muslims rounded up and thrown en-masse into rivers and drowned, and Jews hanged and burnt. There is so much information in this book that I don't know where to start so I will provide some choice examples as a beginning:

Excerpts from Priolkar

The Goa Inquisition:being a Quatercentenary commemoration study of the Inquisition in India by Anant Kakba Priolkar with accounts given by Dr Dellon and De Buchanan< Bombauy University press, fort, Bombay 1961

Chapter 7 P97-98:Procedures of Inquisition of Goa

All the natives of India resident in Goa are hereby ordered thatduring the celebration of their marriages, before or after it or on occasions connected therewith, they should not use Gaitas, or other Hindu musical instruments.

P99

The same natives of India are ordered that in their houses should not be sung on any occassion and under any pretext, vovios songs, either in public or in private.The same natives are ordered that, in the functions of their marriages,they should not annoint the bridegroom or the bride with mixtures of saffron, milk,coconut oil, rice powder or any other things. (basically banning all Hindu marriage ceremonies altogether through to page 104).

P104

..They should not observe fasts on the 11th day of the new moon or full moon, nor in any other days on which the Hindus are accustomed to fast in observance of their sect, and when it happens that on such days they have the duty to fast according to the teachings of the Church, they should do so in conformity with the said teaching, but the fast should be observed in the manner of the Christians and not the Hindus.

.. and so on throughtout the chapter, pretty much confirming all the items listed under "Prohibitions" in the article page.

P121:Chapter 8: Anti-Hindu laws in Goa

The thread ceremony of the Hindus is forbidden in Goa. I (the Viceroy) order that no Hindu subject proceed beyong the borders for the thread ceremony.

P122

There is evidence to show that the Jesuits had forbidden the Hindus to wear the sacred thread. The third Concillio Provincial recommended to the king that Hindus who wore sacred threads should be forbidden to do so or to initiate their sons in wearing sacred threads

P124 details "Laws depriving Hindus of their means of subsistence". P125 details "Measures depriving Hindus of rights and priviledged in village communities"

Here's a beauty. P127."Forcible conversion of the Hindu Orphans"

D. Sebastiao issued the following order which struck terror in the hearts of the Hindus."...I order that as from the date hereof, the children of Hindus, who, in this city of the island of Goa and the territory of India, are left without father, mother, grandfather, grandmother or other ascendant lineals and are not of an age at which they can have understanding and judgement, as soon as the last of such relatives is dead, the Judge of Orphans who has jurisdciction, should cause to be taken immediately and handed over to the College of St. Paul of the society of Jesus of the said city of Goa, for being baptised, educated abd indoctrinated by the Fathers of the said College and being directed by them annd placed in positions according to their respective aptitudes and abilities". the royal order was endorsed by viceroyD. Antao de Noronha and Governor Antonio Moniz Barrete. As originally intended the decree applied to orphans, BUT there were frequent complaints that even children whose mothers and grandparents were living being snatched away from their familied for being baptized.

The text goes on to describe how Children were smuggled out of Goa by Hindus, Christian priests who made a neat living extorting money from Hindus by threatening to report their children as "orphans", how children were really "converted" so that the priests could get their hands on the childrens' estates. How these practices led Hindu parents to be forced into converting to Christianity together with their children etc.

P137 onwards says that some of the clergy tried to sympathize with Hindus, but the "Father of the Christians" complainned to the Archbishop and reinstated a new wave of persecutions

P140-141:"Measures intended to Humiliate Hindus"

The viceroy ordered that Hindu pandits and physicians should not move into the city on horseback or palaquins under pain of a fine of 10 crusados on the first occassion; a fine of 20 crusados on teh second, and imprisonment on the galleys on the third. Viceroy Conde de sandomil ordered that Christian bois should not carry Hindus. The Captain of Cuncolim and Rachol was ordered not to agree to any Hindu being carried by Christian bois. Christian agriultural labourere were forbidden to work in the lands owned by Hindus and Hindus forbidden to employ Christian labourers.

Now the really macabre part is Chapter 9: "Use of torture by the Inquisition and the palace of the Goa Inquisition" P152 contains some nice pictures (paintings) of "Torture by fire" with Hindus being tied up and their feet burned slowly, using some European variant of Chinese water torture on Hindus, and some sort of Contraption made from pulleys in which a Hindu is being stretched to the point of his bones breaking. The text contains details of the strappado method of torture applied to Hindus by the Christians. Here's one from pgs 154-155

As to the torture itself, it combined all that the ferocity of savages and the ingenuity of civilized man had till then invented. beside the ordinary rack, thumb-screws and leg-crushers or Spanish boots, there were spiked wheels over which the victims were drawn with weights on their feet;bioling oil was poured on their legs, burning sulphur dropped on their bodies and lighted candles held beneath their armpits. They were fixed to a revolving table and whirled round till they vomited and became unconscious and on recovery, were forced to "confess" and "convert".

...and so on.

Now, as for the sentence in the article about public burnings and stranglings if confession is done, P29-30 details incidents when Hindus were forced to wear "shirts steeped in Sulphur" and painted with fire-pictures. Those that re to be put to death actually had the flames painted upwards. They were taken from the prison to the Church during mass, insulted and sneered at for a while, then "conducted to the Campo Sancto Lazaro" and burned in the presence of the rest, who look on". Pahe 30 further goes

The cruelties which in the name of religion of peace and love this tribunal practised in Europe were carried to even greater excesses in India where the Inquisitors, surrounded by luxuries which could stand comparison with the regal magnificence of the great potatoes of Asia,saw with pride the Archbishop as well as the viceroy submitted to their power

NOW, HE REPEATS SAKSENA by re-iterating the words of Miranda

"every word of theirs was a sentence of death and at their slightest anod were moved to terror the vast populations speead over the Asiatic regions, whose lived fluctuated in their hands and who on the most frivolous pretext, could be clapped for all time in teh deepest dungeons or STRANGLED or offered as food for the flames of the pyre"

So that's it for all the statements in the article. There is a HUGE amount of information in this book that merits inclusion into the article.MUCH much more than there is now. it is truly quite an eye-opener.wow. Rumpelstiltskin223

section break

Sorry Rumplestiltskin. You and your friends clearly have an agenda which you are wanting to push here, but even this book you have been waiting for, and which is clearly strongly POV does not substantiate the stuff in the article. A lot of what you quote is clearly POV opinion, and not factual. Propaganda pictures somebody has drawn supposedly inquisition tortures are commonplace, and have usually been drawn far away from the alleged incidents, by people working to an agenda. The value of such pictures is only as good as their source.

Nobody is arguing that measures introduced to suppress openly Hindu practices did not take place. There is ample evidence that such laws existed. Similarly it is very likely that orphan babies without relatives will have been brought up as Christians.

The other accusations in your quotes from this book are again suspiciously vague. We have no dates, no incidents, no numbers, no sources.

Stugff like this....

The cruelties which in the name of religion of peace and love this tribunal practised in Europe were carried to even greater excesses in India where the Inquisitors, surrounded by luxuries which could stand comparison with the regal magnificence of the great potatoes of Asia,saw with pride the Archbishop as well as the viceroy submitted to their power

and this...

"every word of theirs was a sentence of death and at their slightest anod were moved to terror the vast populations speead over the Asiatic regions, whose lived fluctuated in their hands and who on the most frivolous pretext, could be clapped for all time in teh deepest dungeons or STRANGLED or offered as food for the flames of the pyre"

are just vague POV ranting, and contain no hard facts. 

You have produced nothing to prove: Thousands of people were killed by the inquisition. (Actual number 50) A pogrom of Hindus took place. Jews were massacred by the inquisition The Bishop of the Thomas church was 'staked' or any of the other direct claims removed from the article, many of which (by not repeating them) you already admit were clearly false.

Instead the article is full of vague allegations written up so as to give readers the impression that thousands of Hindus and Jews were tortured and killed. This is not what Wikipedia is for. the encyclopedia must be a source of provable facts. Prove them or remove the false allegations. Xandar 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Xandar, Priolkar has been reviewed in scholarly journals, and is thought to be a reliable account of the Inquistion. Like you, I'd prefer solid figures/dates, but I'm assuming that Rumpel is giving us some of the most colorful passages of the book. You might try obtaining the book yourself (if you have access to a university library), so you can verify the quotes. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And what did the single 1964 review say? If the book is a good account of the inquisition, it will contain hard facts, not just opinion or vague generalisations - such as the quotes above. These provide no basis for the accusations in Rumplestiltskin's version of the article. The fact that no hard facts seem to exist anywhere about these supposed mass killings seems a clear indication that they are legendary. A better book to look at would be Portuguese In India, The (The New Cambridge History of India) (Hardcover) This available, detailed academic source, presents an entirely different picture to that which appears in this article. It speaks of Hindus being discriminated against, but still dominating the Goan economy, and taking many top roles. I do not have the book, but as far as I can see from an Amazon.com search, there is no mention of Hindus being tortured or killed for being Hindu. Xandar 17:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Portuguese in India volume in the New Cambridge History of India would be a good source. That volume says that Priolkar's account of the inquisition is worth reading; unfortunately, I can't get exact page numbers out of Amazon's "search inside this book" feature, but if you go here and search for "Priolkar" you can find the quote in the "Back matter". --Akhilleus (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Xander, rumple owned you. take it like a man.--D-Boy 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm ordering the Cambridge History via the Library system, but it could take up to a week or two to get to me. Priolkar seems a partisan source, unavailable to most of us, and provides few specifics in the quotes we have been given. The references to torture seem very generalised, and do not correspond with standard inquisition practice. I would like his evidence for them being practiced in Goa - or is this just general inquisition legend? And D-Boy. This is not a question of "owning". It is a matter of not placing partisan, unsourced and inflammatory material into Wikipedia as "fact." Xandar 14:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hee! Priolkar's book is peer-reviewed as excellent so such nonsense is irrelevant. Priolkar is a top notch scholar who is completely accredited. He is an accredited professor of History in Bombay University.His book is regarded as the most authoritative work on Goa Inquisition by his peer reviewer Gerald M. Moser of Penn State University so your attempts to discredit an honest academic show how desperate a missionary would go to to white-wash the facts.Also I read that Priolkar himself is a Roman Catholic so whose partisan?Rumpelstiltskin223 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you are clearly partisan here, Rumplesiltskin, continually calling anyone who challenges the unsourced and inflammatory rubbish you continue to post here, a "missionary". This sort of attitude would indicate someone working to an agenda. Priolkar's obscure and conveniently unobtainable book seems to be the only book in existence about the Goa Inquisition, so the description "most authoritative" is meaningless. Most of what you have quoted from this book is either polemic, POV opinion, lists things that have already been agreed, or else is vague and unsourced. There is no evidence for most of the claims that you keep on putting back in the article without agreement. There is no evidence or factual account given for the supposed tortures so luridly described, and the context of these passages is not given. Is this man describing incidents which he knows about - if so we should see names, dates, contexts and details. Or is he, as I suspect, just repeating general anti-inquisition literature? For an encyclopedia we need facts, not polemic and POV opinion. I have recently been involved on another site with someone who refuses to accept that Crusaders didn't massacre a city of 20,000 people and then eat them all! I get a feeling of deja-vu here. You have been challenged many times to produce legitimate evidence for the accusations you want to post (thousands killed, batches burned, Hindus massacred, pogroms, Jews massacred, etc. etc. )and the POV that infests your version of the article. You have failed to do so. Proof indeed tht these things have no proof. Xandar 14:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:POINT. I think we can stop WP:AGF with you beyond this point. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if Priolkar is "obscure" (hee) then Arnold Toynbee is a nobody. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides, Priolkar himself is Roman Catholic so any question of POV is nonsensical. It's not like Hindus (whom you seem to have a hysterical hatred for) were the only victims. Even Christians were persecuted by the inquisition.Rumpelstiltskin223 14:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Obscure in this context means, no ISBN, no reference on the WWW, forty years old, impossible to get hold of and check what the author actually says, how much is opinion, how much is selected in context and what are his references. Xandar 16:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a classic "grasping at straws" argument. Book is readily available in most public libraries. Lots of references on the WWW (I already cited a peer-review founf easily online). 99.999 percentage of the book is researched fact. Please, missionary trolls really can't compete before academics. Rumpelstiltskin223 20:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumpel, the book is not readily available--as I noted above, WorldCat turns up less than 40 libraries that have the book. You're also misunderstanding what peer review means. Say rather that the book has been favorably reviewed, and is cited as an authoritative source in the New Cambridge History of India volume that Xandar says he's getting. I would strongly suggest not calling other editors "missionary trolls" and other derogatory names, it's not a good way to create a cooperative atmosphere. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why does this Xandar and his sock puppet keep reverting the sourced edits? If I can get the book then anyone can.Priolkar meets wikipedia standards of WP:RS so this discussion is irrelevant. Rumpelstiltskin223 20:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the book, most of Priolkar's research is based on European accounts and the accounts of Christian clergy only, plus his own research done in Goa based on historical records. We do not need to know the details, since an accredited scholar is allowed to do Original research, obviously. We only need to parrot him, and I have. Xandar says that he is some sort of Hindu liar (despite the fact that he is not even Hindu) then he should produce sources that either directly contradict Priolkar or accuse Priolkar of being a liar. Until then, he should stop revert-warring every day as he and his sock does.Rumpelstiltskin223 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumple, I don't know how you got the book, but (at least in the U.S.), you either need access to one of the libraries that owns the book, or access to a library that will get the book through ILL--basically, you need to be at a college or university. Xandar, I think, is in the U.K., so I don't know how much trouble he'll have getting the book. You're right that Priolkar meets WP:RS, but I think Xandar is also right in saying we need dates, numbers, etc. The passages you've quoted are very colorful, but don't provide very much concrete information. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I got the book from an inter-library loan service based on the academic access of an acquaintance. It cost me time and money but I did it. In any case, it would be impossible for me (and illegal copyvio) to start typing the whole book here. What dates and places do you need exactly? Why don't you list one below and I will extract the precise info from the book, ok? Rumpelstiltskin223 20:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for attribution

If you want to know what supposed "facts" Rumpelstiltskin keeps putting in the article and which meed definite precise details, specifics and concrete scholarly attribution. How about these?

• Thousands killed and tortured by the inquisition. The biggest number with any attribution is 120
• the inquisition was aimed primarily at Hindus
• inquisitions against Indian Muslims, Indian Jews,
• condemned Hindus were publicly burned at the stake in the square outside the Sé Cathedral in batches
• heresy was to practice a faith other than Christianity
• Other less fortunate Hindus paid extortion money to Christian priests to keep their children from being kidnapped and baptized
• Those who "confessed" were strangled to death and their corpses burned. Those who did not were burned alive at the stake.
• The first martyr of consequence was Mar Ahathalla who was the bishop from Syria, who was staked by the Goan Inquisition.
• The Jews in the region were rounded up, together with the Hindus.
• The inquisition mandated that celebrating the Jewish Sabbath in Goa was enough to get an Indian Jew burned at the stake
• The Indian Jews were shackled in irons and imprisoned in filthy prisons for long periods of time before they were tried and executed
• the 16th century, the Portuguese massacre of South Indian Jewry
• In a letter written by the Portuguese to their king in 1513 permission is sought for their extermination

There are also still major issues of strongly POV writing and confusing language that makes vague general accusations, in the article. Xandar 15:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The man has his references and the book. get over it, xandar or you won't be able to sleep at night. You clearly have a bible thumping agenda.--D-Boy 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly legitimate to ask for a citation for each of these points. If no citation to a reliable source can be provided for these claims, then they should be removed from the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Still no citations for any of the points above. Xandar 15:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

Articles like this completely discredit Wikipedia. It is a documented historical fact that the Inquisition was directed ONLY at herectics, i.e. Catholics who abjured the faith. It was not directed at Muslims, Jews, Hindus, whatever. Some om this did conmvert and eventually went back to the old practcies tghen coming under the arm of he inquisition. However the Inquisition tried essentialy to reconvert them back, and in only in the few cases where the accused refused reconmversion were them handed over to the civil adminsitration for application of a penalty wat the Inquisition could not do. The article as it is is anticristian propaganda completed debased of any historical base whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.49.89.110 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-03 Goa inquisition

I have accepted the Mediation request filed by User:Xandar. Could I ask that the involved parties explain their desires below? Please don't respond to eachother, just explain what you want, and we'll see if we can work this out. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have closed this case as it appears that you are suffering from a sock puppet attack, which is not meditatable. If problems continue, please contact me directly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we can get a more balanced article together now. Xandar 17:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not specifically stating that everyone involved here is a sockpuppet of the blocked user - merely that you filed a request with MedCab that was 1/2 about said blocked user. I remain available to try to work out any differences that remain between valid editors. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems that Dangerous Boy is now reverting the unsourced material on the list above back into the article now that his ally has gone. The same thing applies. This material is inflammatory and unsourced. It should not be in the article without reliable scholarly attribution. I now have the New Cambridge History of India volume on the portuguese in India. Again it contains none of the allegations listed in the article. Xandar 17:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous Boy, are there sources for your edits? Could you provide them? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Xandar has been asking for sources, in several posts on this talk page. He's also been removing uncited material from the article, as WP:V and WP:RS say editors can (and should), but calling this material things like inflammatory allegations and hate speech has probably made this process more combative than necessary. Of course, when D-Boy and Bakaman revert Xandar's edits as vandalism, that doesn't help either; this is a content dispute, which is different from vandalism. Also, everyone seems to be using IPs--I don't think anyone violated policy by doing so, but it definitely erodes trust when people don't log in.

I'd suggest that Xandar tag disputed material with the {{fact}} template, rather than removing it, and that D-Boy, Bakaman, and any editors who agree with them participate in this discussion--the revert war is going nowhere. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus - that would be a productive way to move forward. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not made aware of any such mediation case, though I did not expect such pillars of the project like Jandolin (talk · contribs) and CC80 (talk · contribs) to notify me.Bakaman 00:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman, if you have evidence that Xandar is a sockpuppet, then please present it in the appropriate forum--either WP:SSP or WP:RCU. (And I remind you that CC80 was shown to be a sockpuppet of an entirely different user, who is long-gone.) If you don't have such evidence, I'd like to ask you to stop accusing Xandar of sockpuppetry, because I think it's not civil, and this kind of sniping makes cooperation less likely. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Xandar's demand for attribution:

"Thousands killed and tortured by the inquisition. The biggest number with any attribution is 120"

Rebuttal:Priolkar

"the inquisition was aimed primarily at Hindus"

Support:Priolkar P159: The Inquisition of Goa punished not only Christians who were suspected of heresy but primarily Hindus who were accused of resisting conversion or infringing the laws directed against other religions.

Support:Pretty much all of Chapter VIII in Part one of Priolkar, which titles "Anti-Hindu Laws in Goa": P115: In the present chapter it is proposed to review in brief verious measures taken by the Portuguese rulers in India with the object of converting the natives to Christianity. The temples and shrines of the Hindus were destroyed, and they were forbidden to erect or maintain new ones even outside the Portuguese territories.Practice of Hindu rites and ceremonies were banned,as was the ceremony of wearing the sacred thread, birth of child etc. The Hindu priests and teachers were either banished or killed.

There is more. Basically the entire chapter showcases banishments, killings and tortures, aimed primarily at Hindus--D-Boy 11:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Any way you could scan a relevent page in for us? What's the ISBN on that book and where did you find it? Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ISBN 978-0836427530. i'll try to scan a page later.--D-Boy 11:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not in worldcat. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hip, search for the author "Priolkar" and the title "Goa Inquisition" on Worldcat and you should get results. I don't know where D-Boy's getting this ISBN, though, because the Worldcat record shows no ISBN, and I think the book was printed before ISBNs existed. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The book was published in 1961.--D-Boy 21:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If it does not have an ISBN, how did you list me the ISBN? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now tagged up the main disputed pointes in the article. Xandar 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe based on [1]. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "rebuttals" above: D-Boy hasn't provided a quote that gives any numbers on how many people were killed. I don't really think the quote given supports "the inquisition was aimed primarily at Hindus"--we need more context for the quote to understand exactly what Priolkar is saying on p. 159. The quote from Ch. 8 talks about "Portuguese authorities", not the Inquisition. The two aren't the same thing, and the article needs to distinguish between the actions of the Portuguese colonial government and the actions of the Inquisition. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

the actions of the port govt are background material for the establishment of the inquisition (which is why Priolkar talks abt it so much)--D-Boy 23:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's important background and should be covered here, but the article isn't currently distinguishing between the actions of the government and the Inquisition. I doubt the Inquisition had the ability to pass laws prohibiting Hindu religious rituals, for instance; that's probably something the govt. did. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just reverted the article again. However if someone reverts the contentious version back, I will accept the suggestion of applying tags on contentiously unsourced material in the article as an interim measure. Xandar 12:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dubious tags

I have now placed tags on the main disputed and unsourced allegations in the article. Xandar 16:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You put dubious tags on references. you better discuss them right here and right now.--D-Boy 22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't issue ultimatums. I don't think it's very civil. As for the tags, I think it's pretty clear what Xandar means by them--he doesn't think the information in the tagged sentences is supported by the citations provided. I have to agree; Priolkar has been quoted on this talk page, but those quotes don't support the tagged sentences. For instance, where does Priolkar say that "In this case, heresy was to practice a faith other than Christianity"? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I want him to discuss why he put those tags. where are his arguements?--D-Boy 07:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't need arguments other than those stated. Check the pages the tags link, on dubious or unauthenticated material. It is up to the people making the dubious statements to find the scholarly references to back them up. I don't think those references exist, because much of the material tagged-up is non-factual. Xandar 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

the tag says see talk page. I'm seeing the talk page. i don't see the reasons. give me the contradictions or I'll take them off.--D-Boy 22:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take the tags off until you show how the material is supported by the cited sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But where are Xander's arguements? The tag says see talk page. I'm seeing the page but I don't see the arguements.--D-Boy 07:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

He just gave you the argument: "It is up to the people making the dubious statements to find the scholarly references to back them up." He doesn't think the uncited stuff is factual, and in the sentences that have citations he doesn't think the citations support the material.

Considering that so far the only person who has acquired the Priolkar book is Rumple, and he's now blocked as a sock, I think confirming some of the dubious material is going to be difficult. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. I've got hold of the book "The Portuguese in India" by MN Pearson. Cambridge University Press 1987. It doesn't have a lot about the Inquisition, however, but certainly does not bear out the lurid stuff people have put into the article, about mass killings, tortures, mass inquisition persecution of Hindus and people of other religions.

SOME RELEVANT EXCERPTS.

p112 It is clear that the dominant native elite were the Saraswat brahmins. This position apparently continued until the end of Portuguese rule in 1961. In the 1580s the owners of the spice shops and and groceries of Goa 'are commonlie the Bramenes, which serve likewise for Priests and Idolatrous Ministers, and have their shops throughout the Cittie. In every place and corner and under prentices, whereby every man may have to serve him at his need' (Lindschoten, vol. 1, pp 229-30). these brahmins were also the controllers of most of the land of the Old Conquests.

p113 The most convincing evidence we have concerning the role of Indians, especially Saraswat brahmins, in the Goan economy comes from quite detailed statistics concerning the holders of rendas, or tax-farming contracts. We have good data for the first seventy years of the seventeenth century. They show that 80 percent of holders were Hindus and 20 percent Christian.

p117 In the watershed year, 1540, in order to encourage conversions all temples in Goa were destroyed. Later this was done in Bardes, in 1573, and in Salcettee in 1584-7. Their no-doubt distraught brahmin guardians often were able to save the holy images and install them just outside Portuguese territory: hence the several great temples in the Ponda area, acquired by the Portuguese only in the more tolerant eighteenth century.

p119 Nor were the Portuguese only concerned with converts. They were much exercised about te purity of a Christian group in India which preceded them, the Thomas Christians. The community numbered anywhere between 80,000 and 200,000 in the sixteenth century. It was believed that their forebears had been converted by St Thomas himself., and by 1517 the saint's tomb had been found in Meliapur, later renamed Sao Thome. Thomas Christians may have derived from the hoary past, but the Portuguese and Counter reformation considered their practices to be overly tinged with Hindu and Nestorian influences, in a word sloppy, close to heretical. Nevertheless, until 1599 they were under the authority of the Syriac Patriarch of Chaldea, and as he was recognised by the Pope, there was nothing the Portuguese could do. In this year they were able, at the Synod of Dampier, to include them within the authority of the padroado, and so directly subject to the wishes of the Pope as interpreted by Portuguese divines in India. Despite the closer control, there were problems with the 'deviations' of the Thomas Christians throughout the seventeenth century.

p120 The self-styled Holy Office had very wide-ranging powers indeed. It had agents in other Portuguese areas, who had the power to ship off suspected heretics to Goa. The non-Christian population was generally not subject to its authority, though those who hindered someone else from being converted or who caused a relapse were. In any case, given the fast and superficial nature of many conversions, especially in the heady 1540s and 1550s, there were vast numbers of 'Christians' who knew almost nothing of their new faith, and so could easily, in the eyes of the Inquisition, relapse.

p122 Indeed, even in the sixteenth century there was some toleration, some intermingling, regardless of official bigotry. Not only the political elite, but also the archbishop, members of orders, and the College of St Paul in 1548, used Hindu doctors. Linschoten noted generally that while the Hindu ceremonies of cremation and marriage were forbidden in Goa, the Portuguese, 'dwell in towne among all sort of nations, as Indians, Heathens, Moores, Iewes, Armenians, Gusarates, Benians, Bramenes, and of all Indian nations and people, which doe al dwell and traficke therein, everie man holding his owne religion, without constrayning any man to doe against his conscience' (Linschoten, vol. 1, pp. 181-2).

p128 Hindu processions continued despite prohibitions and Christians lent jewellery, finery and slaves to the participants, while Portuguese lent guns to fire salutes during the Muslim festival of Ramadan.

The book gives a very different picture to that which certain people have presented in the article. No mention of thousands of killings and torturings. No mention of massacres of Jews, Hindus or Thomas christians. But actually evidence that for the most part, although there was official discrimination against non-Catholics, that this certainly did not amount to widespread killings tortures and genocide. Xandar 19:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Xandar-Even you try to present /say lies 1000 times,it is not going to deny Goa Inuistion and atrocities committed by christion missionaries towards Hindus and others.Hindus were killed by missionaries.This is a FACT.

An appeal of sanity to everyone: from what i have read about history, most things have 2 sides to them. This is no different. There are "notable scholars" from Germany who have denied the Nazi Holocaust. Only, people don't pay too much attention to them because there were videos, newspapers and many such media in that time which cannot be wished away, and which do give us some hard evidence. Germans cannot deny it because they were conquered and indoctrinated with guilt and shame and a perennial reminder of that past. How many Spaniards or Portuguese accept what they did in South America? How many chinese accept that they invaded tibet and have orchestrated an ethnic cleansing? History is always dictated by the victors, that is why you don't have much "evidence" against the portuguese.

Two people here have brought books to the table which present two opposing sides of the same story, and NEITHER one really gives us any hard facts, which "en encyclopedia is supposed to". Well, they can't. You know why? Because these books talk about an era where there was no photography or newspapers or videos or mass-circulation publications to document "hard facts". All of history is only based on accounts of court-historians and such chroniclers whose objectivity would also be questionable. These days, you can find books on practically any subject, and most books would convey the author's point of view. So you cannot even trust books too much. After all, how many people in the world know that Indian books as far back as the 4th century have references to a "spherical earth", a theory for which Galileo was branded a heretic an entire millenium later? There are articles in wikipedia itself that say this.

My point is, we can NEVER ascertain the truth about historical things till we don't invent a time machine. Till then, wikipedia's job should be to present ALL known sides of the story, with appropriate references and disclaimers for each.

What we CAN do in an encyclopaedia article is present the FACTS that exist - not exagerrations, inventions and legends. (For example Galileo was NOT condemned as a heretic for saying the world was round - check it out.) So far the people presenting a lot of the very dubious and controversial claims in this article have TOTALLY FAILED to produce the hard evidence requested for them. It is no use making wild claims that could and do stir up hatreds and violence, and then say "we can never know the truth - so leave them in!" No way. We know the truth about the facts of History from reliable sources - not novels or TV specials or legends. Otherwise everyone can invent their own pseudo-history for their own purposes.

It's getting time when the people who want to keep the claims in the article have to come up with the academic verified sources to back up the claims - or the need to be taken out. Xandar 11:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I've now got the Priolkar book, and a few other sources. I don't think I'll be able to work on the article for a few days, but when I get a chance I'll try to do what I can. In the meantime, I'll just quote Salomon and Sassoon, from the Appendix to Saraiva's The Marrano Factory: "Thus, between 1561 and 1623, Portuguese New Christians, who represented 9% of all those convicted, made up 69% of the 149 persons sentenced to death by the Goan Inquisition." (p. 347) Claims such as "The Inquisition was mainly directed at Hindus" are too simplistic to truly characterize the history of this institution. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Project Hinduism?

I really don't understand how this can be included in Project Hinduism.?

I know that Priolkar has written a book saying that the Inquisition was aimed at Hindus but it is a blatant lie. The target of the inquisition were the newly converted Christians who were secretly continuing Hindu practices.

Take another inaccuracy: the massacre of Muslims took place when the Portuguese captured Goa , not during the inquisition. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

take this: The first inquisitors... established themselves in what was formerly the raja of Goa's palace... . Anyone who knows Goa's history will tell you that the last ruler of Goa before the Portuguese was Adilshah, definetley not a Raja

It's Just Like "Holocaust Denial"

The long emotional debate goes on and on. There will always be people who will deny the atrocities that took place whether they are modern-day Neo-Nazis in regards to the Holocaust, Turks who insist the Massacre of the Armenians in 1915 never took place, the Japanese who deny responsibility for The Rape Of Nanking, etc ad nauseum. As a non-Christian I will testify that the history of the Christianity - particulary that of the Roman Catholic Church - is a blood stained history of oppression, persecution, massacre and genocide. I am not anti-Christian because I can say the same things about Islam (which had an especially bloody history of intolerance towards non-believers) and other religions and philosophies (such as Communism) as well. To the good and honest people of the world: document and educate the rest of us on the terrible acts of persecution, atrocity and genocide that have taken place over the centuries. Build monuments to the victims. If you are a descendant of those responsible for one or more of the inhumane treatment of fellow humans (including my fellow Americans of European descent - in regards to the African Slave issue or the treatment of the indigenous tribespeople of the Americas) ... acknowlege the sins of your forebears and move on. There will never be friendship and mutual respect if the crimes of the past are not addressed. Buddmar 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Buddmar

Please talk about the issue, do not make emotional speeches.I am not denying History, regardless of wheter I like it or not. I am asking that correct facts be stated, and that history should not be twisted to suit personal needs. Nobody is denying that Inqusition did take place, nor as to how horrible it was. But the events which are not part of the inquisition itself should not be included in the article to make it look better or worse than what it is. From what I can see this article includes events prior to the the Inquisition(massacre of Muslims) and events which have not taken place(Hindus were burnt at stake? No. The people who were burnt at the stake were Sephardic Jews and Christians who were accused of covertly following Hindu practices, not Hindus themselves.) --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You just wrote on the Category:Anti-Hinduism categories for discussion/deletion board that the Goa Inquisition didn't involve anti-Hinduism, but only anti-Semitism (i.e., they largely targeted the Sephardic Jews that had settled in Goa, plus some Christians as well [no doubt many of these weren't long time Catholics at all, but the Sephardic "New Christians" who were actually "conversos"/"marranos," or so-called "crypto-Jews"). But here you say that: "The people who were burnt at the stake were Sephardic Jews and Christians who were accused of covertly following Hindu practices, not Hindus themselves." Wouldn't that be a form of anti-Hinduism though, hating/disliking Hinduism enough to begin executing people simply accused of practicing Hinduism either covertly or overtly, what these inquisitor Catholics no doubt considered to be a 'primitive' and 'paganistic' religion at that time? --Wassermann 08:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

On the look of it the punishment of covert-Hindus does seem like anti-Hinduism, but dig a bit deeper and you will see that in this particular case it is ambiguous. The Portuguese and Spanish not only converted people to their religion but also to their culture. It is doubtful as to whether all those who were punished recieved their fate because of religious practices or cultural practices which didn't agree with the Portuguese view of their superior culture. It is difficult to say beacue at that time culture-language-religion were synonymous, while now it is not. Of course the Portugeuse did much to repress the Hindus and coerce them into becoming Christians ,but is is parallel to the events of the inquisition(having started prior to it) and not directly related to the inquisition.

One book I am reading right now: Sarasvati's Children by Alan Machado Prabhu raises the question a to what were the motives of the inquisitionaries. Was it merely religious or something else? He notes some interesting facts:

• The property of a condemned person would be confisticated and split equally between the Church and the informant.
• The majority of the condemned people were rich while the poorer were more likely to be let off after confessing to their crime and seeking redemption.
• the complainants were mostly "fidalgos" or Portuguese "gentlemen". Once a Portuguese citizen came to India, they would never go back , making the colony their permanent home.

So, in my view, the Inquisiton in Goa cannot be absolutely termed as Anti-Hinduism. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate of Deepak were to provide credible sources for his assertions. I had reviewed this article back in February and checked all citations. Deepak's stance smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 08:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Take it any way you like. What is your idea of a credible source? Only those which fit into your POV are credible? And may I remind "Before you clear the dirt from your brothers eye, clear the dirt form your own eye". Are you sure your own actions don't fit into WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing "Persecution of Muslims"

It is clear from the reference provided that the Massacre of Muslims took place in 1510 whereas the inquisition was instituted in 1554. Hence this part is irrelavant to the article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this section. To all the editors of this page: please don't put the section back without discussing here first. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

removal of anti-Hindu laws

I just took out a section listing anti-Hindu laws. The reason for taking it out is that these laws were passed by the colonial government, not the Inquistion. Also, a list is not really a great thing to drop in the middle of an encyclopedia article anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is now a joke...yes a Joke now. All Historic topics are handled by handful of administrators and the ones who do not like views.Alkhilleus and Dileep & Co. are making wikipedia a joke.[Note that Akhilleus and Deepak D'Souza are chosen just as an example- I have seen numerous examples all over wikipedia] That is why wikipedia is loosing all credibility and hijacked by handful autocratics like above. It used ot be a good source in the beginning but not now. These so called "experts" claim to be owners and "self regulators".What a mess!!! The strategy which people like Deepak D'Souza [read converted christians] adopt is to make a topic controverisal if it is against their views.Huh!!Crap!!Ant then there are "self made historical experts" like Akhilleus who remove portions according to thier whims and fancies!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.89.135 (talk • contribs).

Can we have an IP check on this guy I am sure it will have to be one of these three: DBoy, Bakaman or Amey! Just trying too hard to pretend to be an anonymous user. Does't fool me! Only question is: who? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am neither.And I don't want to register for this crap discussion[with little credibility] talk "managed" by crappy[again with little credibility] people like you.But I have been following this debate for a long time and observed it being hijacked by "self made historians" and neo-christians who want to hide the truth.Goa Inquisition and subsequent atrocities against Hindus by Christians is a HISTORICAL FACT.The policy which "neo-christians"[from India] adopt is to make the topic as controversial .Hence they try to engage in "loooong" debate which never ends. Ultiimately people get frustrated and in the end jokers like you claim themselves to be "Right" [??].

Complaints about "loosing all credibility" are self-fulfilling. Please, Mr. Anonymous, get acquainted with a spellchecker. The IP resolves to Reston, VA. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Self fulfilling" for who?? Wikipedia "USED" to be good source for historical topics and was supposed to provide an online "Encyclopedia" but not since last 2 years [at least for historical topics as far as I know].The policy of wikipedia which allows influx of "self-made historians" and "administrators"[?] like you to mutiliate historical facts and convert it to their whims and fancies has been a good reason for its loosing credibility.Online community increasingly *DO NOT* [and it is a well known fact now] point wikipedia as a credible source now-a-days.Your position is just like " a frog in a well" who thinks he is "well known expert".

My dear Mr Anon.! One article that doesn't suit your POV and the entire Wikipedia has gone bad? Too bad isn't it?I apologise for my role in reducing the credibility of WIkipedia for you. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah! A spellchecker will make his/her disguise of an anonymous naive user less credible!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon user! You sir have offended me. Never in my history have I ever stooped so low. When I say something, I do it under my username. I demand an apology from you. No good christian speaks ill of his fellow man.--D-Boy 07:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well D-Boy , I didn't say that it was necessarily you. I just raised the possiblilty that it could be one among the three of you. Take it as an offence, no problem! I will not apologize! Anyway whoever has done it will not come forward and admit it , right?

It hadn't occurred to me before, but I get the feeling that it may not be one among you but the great Hkelkar himself!

And lastly this is the second time you have referred to my religion in a disparaging way. I don't edit articles based on whether it matches my religious outlook or not. Consider me a Bad Christian if you like! Makes no difference to me. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not that I do not want to disclose my identity ,it is because I do not see this talk worthy for my registration when I fully know that the talk has been hijacked by "self made historians"[??] .It seems wikipedia has become a playground for "kids" like you who are nothing but "computer junkies" but claiming to be "expert historians" .And later deciding on what to be kept on Indian history or not on some important topics .Read my above comments for strategy "neo christians" adopt.Absolutely disgusting !!And I am again saying I am not anybody of those you mentioned so don't kill your neurons. —The preceding Sign your posts on talk pages comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/71.117.89.135|71.117.89.135]DO NOT WANT TO SIGN] (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you, your highness for gracing us lowly peasants with your scholarly opinions. Why do you waste your precious time with us "kids" if you consider us unworthy?--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The big Joke

The best thing about this article so far :it mentioned Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Syrian christians, but absolutely no mention of the Goan Christians! Amazing! Speaks much for the "referenced sources" and " real experts" who created this article. About time the real victims of the inquistion were added to the article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I still demand an apology for your insult.--D-Boy 17:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

One simple word : NO. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The biggest Joke

The biggest joke is that two jokers-Deepak D'Souza and Akhilleus -[who are nothing but computer junkies but claim to be [self made] historians] are editing the article and modifying it according to their whims and fancies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.219.126.70 (talk • contribs).

I've never claimed to be a historian, self-made or otherwise. Do you have anything to contribute besides insults? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you know the old jungle saying:"when you point a finger at someone, remeber this, three fingers point back at you"!.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fresh start

Hello,

I've re read the whole book. It appears that many of the laws passed by the colonial govt. have been attributed to the Inquisition. I think the treatment of minorities by the Colonial govt. deserves its own article.

I'm prepared to work User:Akhilleus on this. But i'd make it clear that i wont work with Deepak. He has not only questioned my integrity but also accused me of sockpuppetry. In retrospect his calls for assuming good faith seem hypocirtical.

Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You don't get to choose who you will and won't work with. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't want to work with me :-( ?? That's perfectly fine with me! But there is one unfortunate problem: you see Wikipedia is not some private company where you can chose your project or teammates. And I am not backing off from this article till it is accurate. Choice is yours!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus would turn the other cheek and apologize. Where's my apology. you've shown to be very uncivil about this.--D-Boy 07:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Third time that you are trying to play on my religuos feelings. Look who is talking about civility!Again you dont get any apology!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:: I'm not asking to back you off. You are welcome to add anything you like. You havent even referenced any of your stuff anyways. But i wont co-operate or correspond with you. BTW Wikipedia IS a private foundation. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 07:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT. And if you feel that since Wikipedia is a private foundation then you can go and talk to the TL, PL , PM , CEO whoever and see if you can get them to agree with you. The only change that I have done so far is to remove a "referenced" event that happened before the start of the Inquisition and which you, D-boy and Bakaman have tried so hard to preserve even if it was chronologically out of place. Regarding the other stuff I will come with my referrnces soon. I havent made any changes yet that I havent provided references for have I? wait, be patient. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should to the CEO about this. Isn't jimbo wales jewish? he might side with us. :-D Thanks for the suggestion, Deepak.--D-Boy 09:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

By all means ! If you want to! Please go ahead! After all even Jimbo is a User on WIkipedia.(PS: you seem to keep a good track of evryone's religion!) --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to distance myself from D-Boy's religious agenda. All i did here was remove two "dubious" templates that were placed right in front of sourced statements. That was enough for D'souza to brand me an extremist and i've been at the recieving end of torrent of vitriol from him. It is most illuminating... given that he had no past dealings with me. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 12:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why there have been so many references to people's religions in this discussion? Fresh start? Doesn't look like being one. Nothing regarding this article has been discussed here. All I see are some unnecessary comments on religions and personal attacks.Gnanapiti 19:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Source from "Sarasvati's Children"

As promised I am putting the sources from the book Sarasvati's Children by Alan Machado Prabhu. The chapter is "Horrendum ac tremendum spectaculem". I have condensed it for berevity as well as copyright reasons.:

1. Founded in Portugal in 1536 and it had the objective of ferreting out and exposing all traces of Judaism.
2. Every catholic was bound under pain of execution to denounce suspects who were arrested in 2 witnesses were brought forth.
3. Informers were rewarded and protected
4. 10th-Feb-1774 Inquisition abolished, 5 years later it was reinstated with new conditions:

• great number of witnesses were needed
• auto da fe should not be held publicly

1. Completely done away in 1812.

1. Jesuits are credited with urging its imposition: due to relapse of New Christians into the old ways
2. established in Goa in 1560. Archbisho Gaspar Leao Pereira appointed as grand inquisitor. #jurisdiction over all countries eastof cape of goodhope
3. 21st Mar 1563: laws prohibition of Turkish and Persian Jews from entering Portuguese territories, banned heathen physicians and non-cultivating Brahmins
4. In Goa the search for the crypto Jew soon turned into the ferreting out of the crypto Hindu in converts ... brought within its purview a number of pre-conversion practices...
5. Pyrard found Inquisition to be much worse in Goa than Portugal:

"sometimes Converts were accused of putting crucifixes under pillows...whipping their images, of not eating pork, or in some other ways respecting the old faith while they outwardly confirmed as Christians. objection to Christians having ritual baths in Naora river and crossing borders to participate in festivals and temple visits.

1. Pyrard:" ...No protector or advocate... kept prisoner for 2-3 years, visited by no one... Only the rich are put to death while the poor get off with some penance... The Indian Gentiles or Moors, of whatsoever religion are not subject to this Inquisition, unless they have become Christians , and even then, not so rigourously dealt with as the Portuguese or New Christians from Portugal or other Christians from Europe. ... but if any Indian tried to prevent another from converting or caused another to quit Christianity ..he would be punished "

1. culprits marched in shirts steeped in Sulphur and painted with flames of fire, led to the cathedral(St catherines), after the sermon, the condemned were burned... those who confessed to being Christian were strangled or allowed to suffocate in the smoke.

1. auto da fe ceremony coducted every 2-3 yrs

1. in 2andhalf centuries: 57 burnt alive and 67 in effigy. 105 men and 16 women.

Ohter subjected to various punishments totalled 4,046 (3,034 men).

1. Last auto da Fe 7-Feb1773
2. On 16-Dec-1676 two Indian Christians were burnt for sorcery along with the bones of 4 other , one who had commited suicide.

1. Linschoten mentions imprisionment and torture of Hindus, treatment of new converts even harsher.

della Valle(1623)abd Gamelli Careri(1695) describe how the Inquisitor treated Christians if they deviated from religios orthodoxy and Hindus if they practised their religion. Bocarro(1634) ... slaves of Portuguese had fled Chaul to other lands. Sasetti cites its ferocity as being responsible for migration.

Please do not edit above this line. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• These numbers seem low. Appendix 2 to Saraiva (2001) says that at least 16,202 trials were conducted between 1561-1774. The Inquisition's records were destroyed after it was abolished in 1812, so this number can only be approximate, but 4000 is definitely too low. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we looking at 16,202 trials resulting in 4000+ convictions?. Or the 16,000 v/s 4000 figure(for convictions) is too much of a difference.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see that the actual scholarly, referenced material being produced here seems to be solidly destroying the wilder assertions placed in the original article. It should be noted that studies of the Inquisitions by such as Kamen show that only around 2% of those convicted by the various inquisitions were condemned to death, and fewer were actually executed. The vast majority of convictions resulted in lesser penalties such as penances and fines. Xandar 14:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Modern Asian Studies

The link works.Bakaman 16:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you have to be a subscriber, usually through a university. Cite it like this:

Axelrod, Paul and Fuerch, Michelle A. "Flight of the Deities: Hindu Resistance in Portuguese Goa." Modern Asian Studies 30 (1996), pp. 387-421.

It doesn't matter whether the link works for an individual editor or not; the citation clearly indicates the printed source, and if you don't have a JSTOR subscription, you can go to your local research library and get a dead tree copy. I'm not going to put this in right now, because I don't want to violate the 3RR (at least one person has today), but I'll put it in later. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the link is not working. Please look at it again. The full article contains 35 pages. One can hardly see the introductory page which lacks context. Anwar 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, it doesn't matter whether you personally can see the article or not. It's a peer-reviewed article appearing in an academic journal--the link is just one way to access the article, the traditional way would be to go to a university library and get the physical volume (strangely, most Wikipedia editors seem to be completely unaware that there are physical books and journals, found in buildings called "libraries", and a lot of research in the humanities and social sciences involves going to these "libraries", obtaining books and/or journals, and actually reading what they say).

Whether the Axelrod/Fuerch piece is a good source for this article is a different question. But the fact that you can't access the article is not important. If I cited a June 1925 issue of the New York Times, you might not be able to access it on the web, but it would still be a valid source. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I see certain people have sneaked back and returned all the unattributed hate material earlier removed or tagged, and removed the tags! Once again serious inflammatory statements have been replaced without attribution or reliable sources. Can this be stopped. Xandar 15:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hate website

I have recently removed a link under "external links" that led to a website called "christianaggression.org" which is a collection of news and articles bashing Christian activity in Asia and India in particular. The link led specifically to an article attributed to "Christian historian, Dr. T. R. de Souza", lacking any hard references, that says the following about inquisitorial practices in Goa: "Eyelids were sliced off and extremities were amputated carefully, a person could remain conscious even though the only thing that remained was his torso and a head." Somehow it looks VERY unlikely that people could do this amputation leaving only head and torso centuries ago. Other parts of the article do not strike me as impossible to believe like this one (I'm far from an Inquisition specialist), but anyway I think it would be appropriate to remove this particular website from the section. After my removal an anonymous user has undone my edit. What do you people think? Fsouza 00:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove it. It's highly unlikely that anything from a site that names itself "christianaggression" is going to be worthwhile. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

removals of priolkar and others

I reverted an edit from the defender of wikipedia which blanked references from priolkar, shirodkar, and sakshena under the guise of "dubious" and "consensus". I find no consensus, other than from SPA trolls like jandolin and deepak d'souza and perhaps Rama's Arrow. This was reverted again, with a rather inane edit summary.Bakaman 04:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious material and poorly sourced material

I'm trying to go through this article and remove everything that's been tagged as dubious. It's been tagged for months, and no one's done anything about sourcing the tagged material. In addition, I've removed almost everything in the "persecution of Hindus" section, for a couple of reasons. While a lot of it claims to be sourced to Priolkar, I don't think any of the editors who have been contributing have actually read Priolkar--the only specific citation was to a review of the book that appeared in a journal in the '60s. (Rumpelstiltskin did read the book, but he's a sock of Hkelkar, so I'm not putting too much trust in his edits.)

The other, bigger problem with the "persecution of Hindus" section is that most of it dealt with anti-Hindu laws. Well, guess what, these laws weren't passed by the Inquisition, they were put in place by the Portuguese colonial administration. Different institutions, as has been discussed above. Some of this material might belong as historical background, but it certainly doesn't belong in this form. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

N.b. Sakshena discusses the Goa Inquisition only briefly, on two pages of his book; you can access it on Google Books. This doesn't seem like a very important source for this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody complain about Stupid and idiot Akhilleus for editing facts on this article?

This is height of stupidity.The sources of Pirolkar etc and the fact there was persecution of Hindus has been removed by this Idiot.[I know this is not wikipedia word but this is height of stupidity ].Please pass on message to wikipedia higher authorities to take note of this and disallow Akhilleus from editing.I request Wikipedian authorities to do a background check on him if he[Akhilleus ] is really a historian/authority to edit such truth and facts. Most probably he is just a computer junkie sitting and playing an edit war.STOP THIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.220.222 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)