Jump to content

Talk:K. P. Yohannan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit warring

[edit]

I have fully protected this article due to the edit war. Please use the talk page to discuss and work out differences in the article in accordance with WP:Consensus. If you cannot agree, please consider WP:DR. The article has bIeen protected as it was when I found it. If the content is perceived to violate WP:BLP, it may be reverted during the discussion, but there will need to be some explanation of how it fails that policy. Please feel free to explain here, with {{Edit protected}}. (Please be specific about the issue you perceive. Critical commentary is permitted on Wikipedia, as long as it is properly sourced and otherwise meets the requirements of WP:BLP.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the controversy Section in this article

[edit]

LoveYourNeighbor1

I am having the Annual report of FCRA published by the Home Ministry Of India from 2003 to 2009. It clearly shows how much amount Gospel For Asia (USA) had send to India and how much money Gospel For Asia (India) and Believers Church had totally shown as received and spend for charity. I have solid proof of every real estate transactions done by Gospel For India and their office bearers. Believers church is having a Engineering college in Kerala and one medical college is under construction. Can you please let us know how many students of these colleges are from any of the charity mission supported by this organization. Childrens from mission are not meant to study only in Bible colleges. They can also become doctors and engineers. Where did the money came to build such big infrastructures? You mean the purpose of purchasing 2800 acres of land is charity. Then why doesn't that charity apply when some economically backward people tried to encroach the land under this organization. Why was force including the people of this organization and police applied to remove them from the estate? Why had international amateur radio union monitoring system ordered to remove transmission of Gospel For Asia from Issodun ? Why certain sections of the website of Gospel For Asia is redirected using a CDN script from accessing in India? Benedictdilton (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LoveYourNeighbor1 This page is not about Gospel For Asia this is about K P Yohannan. So your question about raising complaint about an organization don't apply here. I had provided supported reference of credible published media. If you can find any reference that corroborate aganist the points raised by me in the controversy section I am always happy to remove it. I had never heared in my life a pastor being consecrated as a Bishop and he then ordain himself as a Metropolitan. If these kind of matters are hidden from the eyes of the public time will not be far that he declares himself as the Pope. There are media reports by the home minister of Kerala stating that Gospel For Asia is a 7 member trust comprising K P Yohannan and his family members.Benedictdilton (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the following two points should be removed unless sourced better. -crores collected for charity and rehabilitation of Orphans used to purchase 2800 acres of land in Kerala. [12] - this source in no way makes this statement. It states that land was purchased, but it does not say that they used money collected for charity for this purpose. -On a case filed by the Government Of Kerala the High Court Of Kerala had ordered not to sell the land held by him or create any liability. [13] - not a reliable source for a BLP LoveYourNeighbor1 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LoveYourNeighbor1

I would like to chance the first point as follows

" Foreign Funds Of Rs 1044 crores received in the last 15 years was diverted to purchase 2800 acres of land including 2200 acres of Cheruvally estate " Its almost equal to what mentioned on the article.

On the second point moderators and admin can take a decision on the credibility of the source and take any action they seems fit.

Benedictdilton (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding first point - it is already stated in the article. No need to repeat allegations.

In order to better follow BLP guidelines, I think that the introduction should change the term controversy to allegation, and we need to include that none of the allegations have been proven in a court of law as of today. Proposed text is "Yohannan's work has been the subject of various allegations which have not been proven or confirmed in any court of law." Then, any well sourced allegations can be added. This will ensure that Presumption in Favor of Privacy is followed.LoveYourNeighbor1 (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let us take a look at what others had to say about this topic. I am against changing the section name. Controversy is the word that suits this kind of situations. If you have any reference against the points noted here kindly quote that. I am open to edit it. Admin and moderators can take any action that they seems fit for the situation. Benedictdilton (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a reader, I would be interested in knowing what the results of any investigations were. 1. What happened to the petition filed by the Kerala Government in point 7? 2. What are the results of tracking that 1048 crore in point 8? 3. They were accused of land grab in point 9. Were they convicted? Did the government confiscate the land? 4. What was the result of the Home Department investigation in point 10? You seem to have a lot of information on these topics. Are these investigation still going on? Do we have their case numbers? Is there an update. It seems strange to have so many investigations started on allegations with no further details on anything, especially since some of these are over 8 years old.LoveYourNeighbor1 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LoveYourNeighbor1 I don't think you as a reader. I clearly feel you are hell bend on making sure all articles related to K P Yohannan, Gospel For Asia and Believers Church looks clean. Are you aware of the procedure for a person to become a Bishop in an episcopal church. All norms were floated to make Mr K P Yohannan a Bishop. Why you want to hide that fact from the public? These people should have done a lot of good things start a new section and mention it over there. How can you justify throwing a muslim girl out of the school for wearing her traditional head scarf ? If I start to put all the information I collected today evening about these people then I feel one page wont be enough. I don't have any more time to waste after this on this matter As people like you are working over time to make sure that nobody should criticize these guys. I am having answer to all your questions except the second one. I can publish it here if any of the moderators or admin think that I should do so. If you want we can start from the case these guys filed to obtain the domain gfa.org . Why should I worry about the donation given by 1,01,600 United States federal employees under Combined Federal Campaign Why should I worry about money wasted on the name Charity??? Benedictdilton (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mantaining, cleaning or removing Controversy section

[edit]

Well, there is clearly an ongoing discussion regarding the maintenance of Controversy section in this very same article, to uninvolved editors a edit war took place regarding this matter, one editor is in against keeping controversy section while the other on the opposite side, so to reach a better outcome I think a RfC should take place to help this resolution. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 00:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC is out of control through massive puppetry. Closing down early.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Support for retaining controversy section

[edit]
  1. its absolutely true...kp yoahann is a corrupt man top to bottom....he accumulate and collect money from various people for helping indian poor children but he siphoned this to his personnel assets, recently kp yoahannan purchased 2800 acres of rubber estate ....those who paid the charity knows that he buying rubber estate.....? and kp yoahanna investing money fro various other real estate projects....and bishop yohanan is not a proper ordained bishop...he paid money to various other church leaders and forcefully those attended the ordained functions....this topic was very well discussed in kerala.....yohanann native village and tiruvalla knows him very well, he is a fraud bishop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.22.217.174 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 24 April 2013— 1.22.217.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  2. Support for controversy section the cotravorcy part of kp yohannan absolutely its true....bishop yoahannan is not a proper ordained bishop as per Episcopal way,.because of his money muscle power he paid illicit money to various churches leaders,bishops and they attended the function finally it was criticize several independent church leaders, during the church managing committee , those who attended church bishops apologized unconditionally ...and they unanimously stated kp yohannan is not a ordained bishop and these people will never invite Mr yohanana for any other church functions as usually ...

    bishop yohanan collected money from various place for helping indian poor children and he siphoned money for buying for his personnel property....buying the rubber plantations, anyone pay charity ......? buying real estate property any people in the world will pay for charity.....?top to bottom he is a corrupt....his native place and tiruvalla people knows him very well how much dirt this person have — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.22.217.174 (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — 1.22.217.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  3. Support for controversy section
    All users interested in this article are requested to go through the above links and give a genuine opinion. Marktaylor12 (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Marktaylor12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  4. Support for controversy section Believers Church was a pentacostal church from the starting. It became a Episcopal church because of the money power of Mr Yohannan. No norms of the Episcopal church were followed to ordain him as a bishop. Believers church was in the news again because of their move to convert itself as a Jacobite Church. 74.50.123.9 (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support for controversy section Please refer to the Chicago Tribune link in the above post. Forcing gospel while taking advantage of the needy people is not acceptable. This is not what Jesus Christ preached and practiced. 101.63.201.51 (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— 101.63.201.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  6. Support for controversy section kp yohanannan of belivers church one of the christian church mafia dose not following any ethics in their christian life, with money power they are doing all unethical practice specially self styled bishop kp yohanan..just over marthoma churches maramon convention he went their with out any invitations and capture the second raw of the seats, many people eyebrows this episode...a reliable sources confirmed he given huge some of money to marthomoma churches, his name to be one of the speaker for next maramon convention.....how a normal person become bishop ....? but the case of yohananan he paid money to CSI churhes head and he got ordained through illegal way....collecting money in the name of charity and spending for buying rubber estate ....of-course he has to answer to the god ..how he ditched and cheated millions of people around the world, askin for various social works in india...and diverting for his personnel growth........59.177.161.192 — Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 24 April 2013‎ — 59.177.161.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  7. Support for controversy section There are 9 schools under the banner of believers church. One Engineering College they bought and One Medical College is under construction. Assuming that the schools are for educating children under their mission is wrong. All are CBSE schools meant for upper class of the society and most of them are residential aimed at NRI Children. A dispute between the Parent Teachers Association and the school management regarding a huge hike in the school fee comparing to other schools in the locality took the matters to the high court of Kerala. The principal of the same school was made scape goat earlier for throwing out a muslim girl for wearing her traditional head scarf. Now they are building a medical college at a place where there is 2 more medical colleges. The motive behind the medical college is not to serve the poor but take advantage of the self managed education business. 115.242.225.138 (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— 115.242.225.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  8. Support for controversy section As per wikipedia Controversy

"is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus – "turned in an opposite direction," from contra – "against" – and vertere – to turn, or versus (see verse), hence, "to turn against."

  1. Support for controversy section Sounds like an MI6 or CIA plant based on history of Christian missionaries in Asia, as well personal experience with fake Christian priests in Japan.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most applicable or well known controversial subjects, topics or areas are politics, religion and sex.[1][2][3] Other areas of controversy include history and philosophy. Other minor yet prominent areas of controversy are economics, science, finances, culture, education, the military, society, celebrities, organisation, the media, age, gender, and race. Controversy in matters of theology has traditionally been particularly heated, giving rise to the phrase odium theologicum. Controversial issues are held as potentially divisive in a given society, because they can lead to tension and ill will, as a result they are often taboo to be discussed in the light of company in many cultures."

I feel we can't find a better name for this section. Same name is used in almost all topics were there is some thing like this problem exists including politicians and religious leaders. So I request the admin and moderators to continue the section and start a constructive discussion in what should be the content under the section. In India a crime to be proved in a court of law takes 15 - 20 years. In that case all content with creditable reference of print media should be included in the section that is my request. Benedictdilton (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose - I know nothing about the topic and after reading this section, I still know nothing about the topic. It should be removed right away. 1992davidk (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - This section is not only confusing, but it includes non-credible sources (source 13), undated articles ( sources 9,13), the sources cited have no follow-up (sources 7,8,9,10,12) and makes no mention of the recent court ruling from the high court of India (http://profit.ndtv.com/news/corporates/article-delhi-high-court-issues-notice-to-google-facebook-on-churchs-plea-313897 http://www.firstpost.com/india/delhi-hc-issues-notice-to-google-fb-over-churchs-defamation-plea-537709.html). I was unable to find any articles that followed up on the original, either confirming guilt, or exhonerating it. This section appears to be part of a previous misinformation campaign. I also bring notice that the most recent source cited is from June of 2012, and this court ruling was issued in November of 2012. Aphoristofold (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - This section makes no sense. Trabbledot 16:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - At least until the content can be improved by editors who have knowledge about everything, I believe the controversy section should be placed in the talk page LoveYourNeighbor1 (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - This section is confusing and does not make sense 166.137.116.25 (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Since Biographies of Living Persons have a higher standard to meet this section should be moved or removed until it can be written in a way that properly conveys the information while avoiding confusion. As currently written it looks libelous which is highly undesirable in this forum Truthseeker877 (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Truthseeker877 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  7. Oppose - I know nothing about the topic and after reading this section, I still know nothing about the topic. It should be removed. Truthandmyth (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Truthandmyth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  8. Oppose- There seems to be lot of information and links. However the section should be removed until the information can be written and consolidated properly117.201.57.33 (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC).— 117.201.57.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  9. Oppose - These are serious allegations and therefore, I strongly oppose it being published in this confusing formatTruthtobeknown (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Truthtobeknown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  10. it should be removed no sense, the person who did donot know God , he is just a money seeker User:Lovehuman 24 April 2013. — Lovehuman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  11. Oppose - I don't think it's right. It just makes no sense to me.  :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJlune (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - This section should be removed as it does not make any sense. — Preceding
  13. Oppose - This text has lots of links and information, but assumptions/accusations are made instead of leaving it as objective information without a motive. This should definitely be removed until the points are articulated properly. If I want opinions, I'll go to a blog - not wikipedia. Fliphalophyte (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Since Biographies of Living Persons have a higher standard to meet, I believe this section should be removed for now4thelost (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— 4thelost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  15. Oppose -Since Biographies of Living Persons have a higher standard to meet, I believe this section should be removed for nowLilkrystenb (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Lilkrystenb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  16. Oppose - Since biographies of living persons have a higher standard to meet, I agree that this section should be removed for the time being. 15:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)15:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - This section does not seem to be from an objective perspective but from someone with ulterior motives.
  18. Oppose - I believe this section should be removed until it can be improved and clarified from a more objective perspective Barefootgringa (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Barefootgringa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  19. Oppose - I oppose this and believe that this page should not be public unless the information is more solid. Many of the claims are slanderous with no real backing.
  20. Oppose - i am trying to understand and cannot clearly form an oppinion of KP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skateurmom4life (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Skateurmom4life (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  21. Oppose - This section is confusing and some sources are questionable. I believe that it should be removed until it can be clarified and the information is better verified.Lisa Grace (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Lisa Grace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  22. Oppose - This page does not agree with the standards outlined in the biographies of living persons section. I agree that this section should be removed for the time being. User:G4theLost 17:21 24 April 2013 (UTC)— G4theLost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  23. Oppose - These sources are questionable and the information doesn't make sense, so the section should be removed. Ecourageous21 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Ecourageous21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  24. Oppose - This section is really confusing Shadowcamp (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Shadowcamp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  25. Oppose - This section doesn't make sense and should be removed. Billyjoe23 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Billyjoe23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  26. Oppose – There seems to be a lot of spiteful comments about KP Yohannan and not much factual backing. Those of you who think this man is so evil should go to the authorities, and stop spreading slander. I am going to suggest that the reason you do not want to go to authorities is because you know there is no real evidence against this man. I have read his books, heard him speak, met him in person, and met a lot of people who have watched his life. All indicators point to him being a kind, humble and gentle man, and I would trust him with my life and children. He has spent his life helping people and encouraging people. If only more of us were like him!Jpdao (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Jpdao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  27. Oppose - This makes no sense! Braley mama (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Braley mama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  28. Oppose - This page does not agree with the standards outlined in the biographies of living persons section. I agree that this section should be removed for the time being. User:Chica_Irlandesa 17:21 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Chica irlandesa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  29. Oppose - This section makes no sense. Jmmart76 (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - Since Biographies of Living Persons have a higher standard to meet, I believe this section should be removed for now
  31. Oppose - This page does not agree with the standards outlined in the biographies of living persons section. I agree that this section should be removed for the time being. User:HelenWhite 17:21 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Helenofwhite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  32. Oppose - The points should be articulated properly. As someone who doesn't know anything about this topic, I can't help in this area, but I do believe this should be removed until points are articulated properly. Hababon (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose – This section is very confusing.Carolineabblitt (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)— Carolineabblitt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  34. Oppose - This makes no sense! Kelly980
  35. Oppose - This section contains false information, and therefore should be removed. Horses1135 (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose - This section makes absolutely no sense. Jachacko (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose - Not only does this section not make sense, but it doesn't conform to the standards required. It should be removedKt9980 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)-[reply]
  38. Oppose - This section makes no sense and doesn't follow the standards required. It is misleading and unclear and should be removed.Chimbu10 (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose - This does not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.237.243 (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose - Under Media Law, which governs the legal principles for publications, this section should be removed for libel. If those "authors" posting such defamatory statements had a byline, they could be brought to court. Statements, like the above, if posted in any newspaper, magazine or media information site would be legally at risk of libel (defamation), which is a serious matter in the media realm—no matter the topic. Thereby, this section should be removed as it’s not accurate or factual. Mmj04b (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose - This section is unclear and doesn't make sense. It should be removed. Linert (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose - This section seems confusing and does not seem to add a helpful understanding to a biography of a living person. Pomegranate22 (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose – This is incredibly confusing. This section should definitely be removed. Truthiswhatmattershere (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose - This section should be removed as it is confusing and misleading.Tjlamb10 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose- Since Biographies of Living Persons have a higher standard to meet, I believe this section should be removed for now. Powellful (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose - I think that the section is confusing and unclear. I agree that it should be removed for now. Julie828 (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose - This section does not make sense and does not follow standards required for biographies of living persons. This section should therefore be removed for now. Sherkt (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose - I believe biographies of living persons require a higher standard, so this material should be removed.Phun2cook (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose - I think that the section is slanderous and needs to be taken down. Cynababon (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose - I'm confused why this would be allowed to be posted seems very wrong, this needs to be taken down. Riseupforyourking (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose - This section is really confusing --Iswear9126 (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose - This is confusing, it doesn't add anything and shouldn't be here in the first place please remove! Hababon (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose - The statements made are not clear, and the sources are not reliable. Please have this section removed because there are no reliable facts backing up any of these slandering accusations.--Steveg159 (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose -This information is unclear, misleading, and defames the person in question without just cause. It should be removed.Jpcplus (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose - This section doesn't make any sense.--ChristianonaMission (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose - This article doesn't seem legit. It needs to be taken down.TrulaChristine (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose - The material in this section is quite difficult to understand. I would suggest removing it for clarity's sake. Pianocap (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose - This section is confusing and seems to present accusations/assumptions with ulterior motives. Also, I believe biographies for living persons require a higher standard. It should definitely be removed. Savedbygrace99 (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose - This section appears to be defamatory. I agree with those above who say it should be removed. Lovecoversall (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose - I agree. This section is super confusing, and doesn't make sense. It should be removed. 173.71.40.12 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose - Um, this article talks about allegations but not the results of them. This makes it confusing because the reader doesn't reallly know what's happened. Why bring up an accusation and not include info on how it was resolved? It just confuses me, so I think it should be deleted. The allegations are weird too...I don't even understand what they're saying.Isasnomad (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose - We need to maintain a high standard of truth in all biographies because a persons name and legacy is being affected. Until this subject is resolved, I believe it should be removed. Sitandputter (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed this RfC down, as it is obviously completely out of control. Please continue the cleanup of the disputed passage that is currently underway; then, based on better material, re-start an RfC if necessary, possibly on a subpage that can be kept semiprotected while the RfC lasts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up the controversy Section.

[edit]

I was not aware that this matter was this much sensitive and I am going to be more careful in my write up. I am putting up my first point.Suggestions are welcome.

  1. On February 6, 2003, Mr. K P Yohannan was consecrated as a Bishop by floating all norms by the Moderator of Church of South India Bishop K J Samuel. (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/an-archbishop-s-spiritual-factory/323561) Opposing factions in the CSI in a letter to the moderator and other Bishops raised doubts on motive behind the action of the Believers Church and declared that Believers Church is not a part of Church of South India. (http://www.hindu.com/2003/02/10/stories/2003021003650400.htm) Benedictdilton (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comments had come up against this point Hope we can go forward with this.Benedictdilton (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Government Of Kerala filed a petition on 13 November 2012 athe High Court Of Kerala against Harrison Malayalam Ltd and K P Yohannan asking them to deposit profit accured by using Government property in their possession . Decision on this matter is pending in the high court. (http://www.madhyamam.com/en/node/6891)Benedictdilton (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the criticism that cited Iain Buchanan because it was sloppy and overstated his position. If you would like to reinstate it, please make sure you attribute Buchanan's criticism to his interview, not his book, and perhaps strike the claim that Buchanan said Yohannan welcomed the tsunami since he only talked about how Yohannan welcomed the tsunami, which has a different connotation than claiming he welcomed it. markegli (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the allegation that "only a priest can become a bishop," there seems to be a contradiction with the previous section. Under "Ministry," we clearly see that "Yohannan became an ordained clergyman," which means that he would qualify as a pastor or "priest," with the usage depending on what part of the world you belong to. Given that status, an ordination as a bishop would be the "normal course." This part seems more libelous than an attempt at presenting the truth. LivingIsSimple (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the content in the controversies page belongs in K.P. Yohannan's biography.

1. The allegations listed are against either Gospel for Asia or Believers Church, and not K.P. personally.

2. At least two of the allegations have secondary sources that explain the court cases that absolve the allegations against Gospel for Asia and Believer's Church.

3. The issues around Harrison Malayalam and the Cheruvally Estate were absolved, but even if they weren't, the contention is whether Harrison Malayalam had an authorized title deed to sell the land. This isn't an issue with K.P. personally.

If these things are deemed notable enough to be in a biography about K.P. Yohannan, then they should be labelled as allegations, not as controversies.

HappyPmachine (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Removed questionable criticism section.

It seems like this content has little to do with K.P. Yohannan personally. He's mentioned in these articles more because he is head of Gospel for Asia and Believer's Church, which the cases were against, rather than his personal involvement.

The rubber estate, which this section all centers on, was purchased by Believer's Church from Harrison Malayalam. It is not a personal property of K.P.

http://www.believerschurch.com/cheruvally-estate/

Moreover, Gospel for Asia is a registered NGO, and Believer's Church is a registered church in India. Therefore, audits are a normal part of operation. The fact that no subsequent sources exist that report any wrong-doing was found testifies to the fact that the claims had no credibility.

Finally, as the sources mentioned, the cases involving the rubber estate were all absolved, therefore these aren't really a controversy.

HappyPmachine (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed poorly sourced controversy section

The controversy section appeared to be a direct copy-paste quote mongering speculation from a questionable source, and I have hence removed it. This page especially requires a neutral tone, and it appears that the content dumped here did not meet the qualifications of WP:BLP

LivingIsSimple (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the attention of Admin and Moderators

[edit]

I request admin and moderators to keep a close eye on the following articles Gospel for Asia, K. P. Yohannan, Believers Church there is a clear indication that a there can be again a massive puppetry as happened in the talk page of K. P. Yohannan.Benedictdilton (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page move and recent edits by Elfgirl13 may be a further instance of this. DFH (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only contribs by this user all relate to the same three connected pages. Looking suspiciously like more of the puppetry that we saw earlier. DFH (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely puppetry. Also, the page move needs to be reverted. Abhishek Jacob (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on K. P. Yohannan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The recent page move?

[edit]

The page move of 2018-12-08 by Elfgirl13 seems to be not in accordance with a WP policy. Even the present Archbishop of Canterbury's page is still named Justin Welby. This article is about K. P. Yohannan but the new page name now reflects his ecclesiastical title rather than his real name. Please would someone with much more experience and knowledge of WP policy look into this. Thanks. DFH (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments: Should this page have ever been moved from "K. P. Yohannan" ?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A) Article moved back - Article titles should be discussed via WP:RM, B) Sockpuppetry issues should be taken to WP:SPI. Closing as this isn't an RFC as such. –Davey2010Talk 20:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments I made in on 21 January 2019 in the previous section, and consider whether most of the edits since October 2018 might all be further instances of sockpuppetry. DFH (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Summoned by bot) RfCs are to resolve disputes, and none appears evident at the current time. Also you need to state the issue in dispute in the RfC. I suggest that you close this out. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation If you are concerned about sockpuppetry, then according to Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry, you should report what you've found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. Ender and Peter 06:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Summoned by bot) @David Haslam: I agree with both Enderandpeter and Coretheapple above. Please close out this RfC. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message 

(talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Same as above. Summoned by bot. This should be closed and taken to WP:SPI. Meatsgains(talk) 01:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New name/title

[edit]

Given he is using the combo name/title of Moran Mor Athanasius Yohan Metropolitan we should probably figure out and source which parts are the name and which the titles. Metropolitan is a title as is Moran Mor so the name bit is Athanasius Yohan. Sourcing? or should we just link those parts of the name/title? --Erp (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:K._P._Yohannan&oldid=1222967610"