Talk:Christianity in India/Archive 1

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

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

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

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

If I may add, it's just a chance for editors to flex their know-it-all muscle, show everybody how smart they are... GG98 (GuelphGryphon98) 07:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Syrian Christian Tradition
Um... Yeah, so, I'm gonna go ahead and modify "tradition of more than 2000 years" in re Syrian Christians, because that would mean the community was founded when Christ was, at the oldest, 6 years old.. And don't bitch to me about the actual year of Christ's birth because I'll just ignore you (you pretentious wad, whoever you are). —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuelphGryphon98 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nearly 2000 years would be much better! Witnessforpeace 10:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Other issues
The article should address the difficulties missionaries faced, and still face, in attempting to convert Hindus to Christianity: namely that many will readily accept Christ, but not give up the other gods -- it's common to see, in many "Christian" households, a shrine with a depiction of Jesus, but also various other Hindu gods. Badagnani 06:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you. More input on that front is required. You said: It's common to see, in many "Christian" households, a shrine with a depiction of Jesus, but also various other Hindu gods. - Could you elaborate that a bit? I myself am a Christian (from India), but I know of no such picture. Perhaps you are refering to the depiction of the Gods of Hinduism, Christianity and Islam together in one picture frame? Such a depiction is very common in India; and is just a reiteration of the Indian weltanschauung, which stresses on unity in diversity.-- thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu Joseph13:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Indians who converted
Not all Indians who converted to Christianity in India were Hindu. Many Indians in Kerala were Jews. Mochamalu 22:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The incorrect data was added by a new editor. I've reverted the POV edits. Thanks for pointing out.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 14:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


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

Hoax?
Why does the article contain a disclaimer indicating it's suspected of being a hoax? Tom e rtalk 12:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * because isolated incidents are being used to foment bias. Besides, the issues there are not related to religion but communalism, which is a different matter from religion. Rumpelstiltskin223 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But what does that have to do with hoaxes? Tom e rtalk  21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The hoax is in the implicit claim that this has anything to do with Christianity (since it is written in the Christianity in India article). This was put there by a group Islamist editors and their socks as a revenge for their tendentious edits to other articles which got reverted by legitimate wikipedians (this is why the article is locked presently) and it will be removed once the article is unlocked. This section belongs in articles on Indian communalism, not in an article on religion.Rumpelstiltskin223 21:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I'm tempted to unlock the article and take that crap out of there.  Tom e rtalk  21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The hoax tag should be taken out and replaced with an "accuracy" or "disputed" tag, as the hoax tag causes the whole article to be categorized as a hoax. Tubezone 19:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As it is, that's how I happened upon this article to begin with... I would have removed the tag, but didn't bcz at the last moment, I noticed the article is presently protected.  Tom e rtalk  06:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolving editing disputes.
What are the disputes, who's involved, and how do the involved parties intend to move forward? Tom e rtalk 21:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute, just a revenge edit-war, see this complaint and this RFCU. Rumpelstiltskin223 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I ran into this article through Category:Wikipedia cleanup. Concerning the Hindu Christian Conflict section I would like to edit it down to those facts supported by the sources only, so that I may remove both tags currently in place there, i.e.: Not verified & hoax. → James Kidd  ( contr / talk / email ) 05:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please propose versions of the disputed section here. Tom e rtalk 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See below. → James Kidd ( contr / talk / email ) 09:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * The following was removed from the Hindu Christian Conflict section:
 * ''The cause of the terror groups are supported by leadership of the American Baptist Churches USA. John Sundquist of International Ministries ABC/USA stated support for these groups in a release on Feb. 26, 1998.

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


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


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

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

Ah. Here we go. Enjoy. :-) Tom e rtalk  06:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

Updated information in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_India part
Here is the newest version, please feel free to add your comments and ideas

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

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

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


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

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

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


 * Do you have a reliable source for that statistic, which is contradicted by the most authoritative source on the topic: the 2001 Indian census ? Abecedare (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The break down is on the page look your selfPakhomovru (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already mentioned the double-counting problem with that data in the comment you deleted earlier. That aside, wikipedia policies prohibit synthesis. Abecedare (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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


 * It is evident from the contribs of the POV push by an account -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


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


 * There is information on the Goan Inquisition in the article already and also a link to the article is in the template. To give that anymore details is certainly a breach of WP:UNDUE. Ciao <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 16:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. And I notice a specific reference to the Goa inquisition and conversions in the Hindu-Christian conflict section. No sense in belaboring the point further. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


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


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


 * You really didn't bother to read WP:UNDUE, did you? <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 15:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets clear up one thing about the Goa Inquisition, it was not aimed at Hindus. It was aimed at the new converts. Most conversions took palce between 1510 and 1560(I'll tell you the exact years later) but much before the Inquisistion. A group of POV pushers has constantly pushed this viewpoint that the Inquisition was aimed at converting Hindus. The truth is the Office of the Inquisition had no authority whatsoever over Hindus. Any anti-Hindu laws that were propogated after 1561 were done by the Portuguese administration not from the the Inqusuisitionaries and had no link to the inquisition itself. The only sources that claim that the Inquesition was aimed at converting Hindus are from the Hindutvawaid camp.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahem, yes, and who were these so called new converts? Martians? The fact is that reliable sources clearly point out that a large number of Hindu temples were destroyed and Hindus forced into Christianity (and this was even before the inquisition started). Perhaps a simple search through google books would clear your doubts. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you use your head, the new "converts" were converted to Christianity, hence, the "new converts" were "Christians" not martians. Is that such a difficult thing to understand? Can you find a single source that says that the Inquisitionalires were given authority over non-Christians? We are talking about the Inquisiton. What happended "before" the inquistion does not become part of the Inquistition.  --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant since Martian-ism doesn't recognize either converting in or converting out of their religion :-) Did the Inquisitors seek permission from the local martian priest? 67.169.0.250 (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to reply to such crass nonsense. especially when I have reason to beleive that it is comming from a sock of Hkelkar. You have any issue swith the Inquistion take it up on that article's talk page. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue here is your earlier statement Lets clear up one thing about the Goa Inquisition, it was not aimed at Hindus. It was aimed at the new converts. Your statement is clearly false and ignorant since Hinduism doesn't recognize conversions and since you seem to be applying assumptions from your own religion into Hinduism (again clearly ignorant). The only way a person becomes a Hindu is by birth or by marriage and after that there is really no other "state of existence" for that person either in his/her current, past, or future lifetimes. So whatever you like to call these people ("new converts", etc) the fact is that they were Hindus. Its good to have religious views, but please keep yours to yourself and I won't push mine to you. Hope it makes sense to you now. Best Wishes :-) 67.169.0.250 (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm, just makes me wonder in awe why some political parties were pushing an anti-conversion bill, when conversion is not recognised in the first place. Does that mean this whole list of people were a bunch of jokers? Yes indeed, its good to have religious views, but please keep yours to yourself. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 08:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What you refer to as "Anti-conversion laws" are actually "anti-forced conversion laws" (please take a moment to actually read them). Also, the laws and constitution of India does not recognize a "persons right to convert others." However, the "right to propagate (the knowledge of) your religion" is recognized. There is a difference. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, there are laws under consideration that may make foreign funding of religious institutions illegal (and off course that will impact the conversion activities greatly). All this should be included in this article. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have struck out the comments by anon here because of POV and PA issues. Nonetheless let anon answer one simple question: Is his personal definition of who is a Hindu or non-Hindu binding to an event or person in the past. The Portuguese Inquisistionries could'nt have cared less as to whether in the eyes of Hinduism the new converts were still Hindus or not. Anon has asked a question:Did the Inquisitors seek permission from the local martian priest?Funny that anon expected them to seek permission from Hindu priests(oh Im sorry ,"Martian" priests according to anon) when they believed in the supremacy of their relegion.
 * PS: I will henceforth ignore any comunication from anon .--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hindus are not Christians. Hindus and Hinduism don't believe in, as per your current mindset, "supremacy" of their religion. On the contrary, all sincerely followed paths to god as considered equal. As far as "definition of who is a Hindu or whether Hinduism is a so called "binding event" I suggest you start reading up. Google books should be helpful. Don't expect me to "educate" you here. Best Wishes. 19:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.0.250 (talk)
 * Also, I agree with your statement The Portuguese Inquisistionries could'nt have cared less as to whether in the eyes of Hinduism the new converts were still Hindus or not since the Portuguese were there to conqure, enslave, exploit, and tailor Goa to their own benefit as opposed to any benefit for the people of Goa and that is exactly why they had no desire to seek local opinion and no qualms about violence. Inquisition was probably the most violent event in Goa's history. I would suggest modifying wording to indicate this.67.169.0.250 (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh! Please read carefully before shooting off replies. When I said "they believed in the supremacy of their relegion" I was reffering to the Portuguese, not Hindus. there was a more violent event in goa's history and that was the Massacre of Muslims in 1510. Perhaps you should read a bit of Goa's history instead of advising me to. And why would they bother to seek the opinion of the locals before establishing the inquisition? Where in history have rulers sought permission from their subjects to oppress them? Did the upper castes seek the opinions of the dalits as to how they felt about the caste system? You make me laugh. You are here only to air your own views. You are treating a serious encyclopedia article discussion page as an interactive forum. This is my final reply to any post by you. You may reply as many time sa you like but I will ignore it. And I bet any sensibble editor will do the same.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

An edit war by compulsive reverts. Is this article neutral?
(See comments in prior section also) I am well aware of WP:UNDUE. However I disagree with the gang-up undos to edit out anything that balances the slant of this article. Given the inability of both these people to also discuss specific points of contention while removing edits I will have no option but to dispute the neutrality of the article. Coming to the specific points. Please explain:
 * 1) Why is adding one referenced line, in an entire paragraph discussing that myth, that this account of St. Thomas coming to India is historically disputed is WP:UNDUE. I understand people may continue to hold religious beliefs that are be challenged by historical accounts but Wikipedia is not really the place to propagate those beliefs as history. This version of history (of St. Thomas coming to India) is a local myth--European schools teaching Christian history do not teach St. Thomas in "India" as history. No less than church historian Bishop Stephen Neill, who spent years in India researching the St. Thomas legend, has disputed the historical veracity of this myth. On what basis, other than extreme prejudice at maintaining the article's slant, was this single line edit, pointing out that this the historicity of this is disputed, removed?
 * 2) Secondly, the Joshua Project is a major contemporary initiative for Christian evangelism in India. What makes you remove any reference to this on the grounds of WP:UNDUE? At best you can move it into its own section in the article.

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


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

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


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


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


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


 * Lets get this straight. St Thomas in India is a religious tradition amongst Catholics and Orthodox Christians in India. Religious traditions do not need to be historical (I remember reading this while following - although not participating- in a discussion on having an article on Historical Rama). The claim put by the editor Puck42 is that the tradition is a cooked up myth with an evil plan hidden behind it, is surely not an accepted view in the academic world, be it Europe or India. An IAS officer doesn't qualify as an historian. If the editor can give us good sources and keeping in mind that its from the mainstream, I wouldn't think anyone would oppose him adding those details. Failing which, its surely not worth to be in an encyclopedia. BTW, even Indians do not realise that Christ (or any Jew at Christ's time) should have looked more like an Indian. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 07:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a minor correction here. St Thomas's indian connection is not a tradition amongst Catholics. More recently, the Pope himself made it very clear. -Bharatveer (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is amongst Catholics in India (please read what I said earlier) . You may want to have a quick browse through of the San Thome Basilica website here. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 15:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle#Pope_Benedict_XVI.27s_controversial_statements

.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I shall end replying to troll, but before that, let me remind you that you are quoting wikipedia in wikipedia which is not alowed and second Indian Catholics opposed to the Pope's statement and it was amended. The fact stays that Indian Catholics still hold the tradition that St Thomas as an Apostle of India. Ciao <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 06:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks User:Wikiality. Please read carefully what I have written - "''St Thomas's indian connection is not a tradition amongst Catholics. More recently, the Pope himself made it very clear .Please note again the word used is "Catholics". The WP rule, which you mentioned here has no relevance in this discussion. I cited that section just to make you aware of Pope's concern.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see any personal attacks. FYI San Thome Basilica is indeed a Catholic diocese. The diocese still maintains the tradition of St Thomas as Apostle of India through the south. You already had the reference for it. Catholic Encylopedia which analyses the historical verifiability of Thomas legends states, to quote ...and the tradition that it was here that St. Thomas laid down his life is locally very strong. Vatican's view is something that you can quoting, but from the start I've been talking about local (Indian) Catholic tradition along with Saint Thomas Christians. Please quote citations if you have any, that contemporary Indian Catholics refusing Thomas in South India tradition. Ciao <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 07:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * well, no reason in continuing this discussion.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Add a section on Contemporary Christianity
Noticed that there is no section on contemporary Christianity, other than demographics. It would be good to add a reference to the new Bible that has just been released, that includes references to Indian scriptures. Father Bede Griffith's work is also notable. Perhaps these can come in the acculturation section. Another major contemporary development is the Joshua Project, a largely American Funded push for the conversion of India by aggressive Protestant organizations.Puck42 (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does the Joshua Project state that its main aim is conversion of India. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition and non Christians
Now that we have done enough chitchat, i thought I would bring up some WP:RS:

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


 * Thank you, but this is Talk:Christianity in India not Talk: Goa Inquisition. Again , please stick to the topic and stop treating Wikipedia as a forum. Wikipedia is not therapy. You may kindly discuss the relevant section on the relevant article page. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So Goa Inquisition is nothing to do with Christianity in India? Not sure why you are so ashamed of it hundreds of years after the fact. Most things do have a positive and negative aspects and usually for WP:NPOV, we cover them both and it certainly does give a level of confidence in the article and makes in more genuine. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignored above chat as per WP:THERAPY --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

the goa acquisition is a important part of christianity in india and most would agree. this wikipedia article is itself too small to provide reasonable detail of christianity in india. i think information is deliberately being ignored based on personal POV. deepak, i think it's you whose acting like a brat. goa inquisition has everything to do with christian history in india. stop taking things personal and do what is meant. 117.98.83.197 (talk)yet_another_hindu_infidel —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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

DELETING TALKPAGE
Can the discussion below be taken to one of the user's talk pages please? Thanks <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 11:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already done that! :-) --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hindu- Chirstian conflict
The following statement does not have any reference and hence an unsubstantiated allegation The Government of the state of Tripura has claimed that it has evidence that the Baptist Church of Tripura has been supporting the terrorist group National Liberation Front of Tripura

I am going to remove this statement. If you have any object, let me know by tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiancrusader (talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Major rework necessary.
I propose the following changes to the article: Any suggestions/comments/oppositions etc are welcome--Deepak D'Souza 05:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Fork the history section into a seperate article titled History of Christianity in India and reduce the present section to 2-3 paragraphs
 * 2) Add a section called "Major denominations". This section will focus on the various denominations and sects in brief but will emphasise on the indegenous groups such as Syrio-Malabar and Syrio-Ernakulam.
 * 3) the history section focuses in too much detail about St. Thomas. A single paragraph should be sufficient.
 * I agree with an independent entry on History. I reckon that this article should lay emphasis on what is unique to the Christianity in India. So indeed concentrating more on indegenous groups will make a lot of sense. There is also a good deal of indegeneous practises amongst Indian Chrisitians, even Indian Catholics. There are few article which I had come across a while ago -, , ,.

See if these help too. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 11:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I would propose a section on contemporary trends in Indian Christianity. This should include issues of acculturation, including people like Father Griffiths and the arrival of more aggressive evangelical denominations like the Seventh Day Adventists, New Life Church and the work under the Joshua project. In response to an earlier query by Dinesh, a major focus of the Joshua Project is the 10/40 window in which India lies squarely in the middle of.  The Joshua project identifies India as having the largest number of unreached groups. Puck42 (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

-anonymous user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.45.122 (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I am going to remove the following words in the "Early modern period" history section, "valiant" from the "the valiant Vijayanagara ruler Krishnadevraya" and "dauntless" from the "the dauntless Bednore Queen of Mangalore Abbakka Rani of Ullal.". They are being removed for obvious POV reasons. As a side note, for the purpose of editorializing, there are many an indian who subscribes to Hindutva ideology and one famous pass-time of this ideology is coming up with revisionist history.

How many Chirch Images do we need?
It seems like this article has become a gallery for church images. May I remind that this article is "Christianity in India", not "Churches in India". Every single user insists on putting an image of a church which represents his/her region, sect or group. We only need 2-3images. Only those churches which can claim to be important at the India level, and not at district or state level. The images should be representative of some aspect of Indian Christianity in terms of historical importance deserve to be here. So can wee have some consensus about this? --Deepak D'Souza 04:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakhomovru (talk • contribs) 13:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice work collecting the sources! The section is greatly improved thanks to your efforts. Note though that I have removed the total from the table because it both violated wikipedia's policies on synthessis and (more importnatly) was simply incorrect due to double-counting. For example, Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and Syro-Malankara Catholic Church members were being counted as both members of the individual churches, as well as Roman Catholic (the table can perhaps be formatted to make these relationships clear). That is possibly the reason why your addition was yielding an inflated number compared to the census of India statistics. Abecedare (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I ahve taken a stab at reformatting the table (no content change). Please feel free to correct any errors I may have introduced in the classification. Abecedare (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the things you did, look numbers are ok and no doubling is there I would revert the changes back and we can discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakhomovru (talk • contribs) 09:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

St. Thomas and Karala
As we have discussed before, there is no "proof", nor can there be, that St. Thomas ever came to Karala. The words "it is commonly believed that..." can be used.

One major reason is that there is no written record anywhere. The second is that we have to fall back on western understanding of India, which was poor in the Dark Ages. The term "India" referred to what is now Pakistan. Europeans did not understand the geography of the subcontinent. Nor did the inhabitants themselves call themselves by a name that included the entire subcontinent. They were under different kingdoms.

There are multiple graves, far too many, of St. Thomas, which is another problem since he can't be buried in more than one or two of them (maybe parts got moved for religious reasons). But he has 6-8 graves or so in several countries. So no help there.

I think most editors will allow anyone their fantasy if they precede it with the true statement, "It is believed.." or some qualifier. But since it can't be proved or properly footnoted with a WP:RELY reference, it really shouldn't be stated as fact.

If the revert war continues, I will ask for the article to be locked until we straighten this out.Student7 (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it shouldn't be stated as a fact. so i have made changes to this regard. . Arjun  024  11:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

First Jewish communities in India
Article states that the first Jewish migration to India followed the destruction of the First Temple (properly dated to sixth century BCE). But if you follow link to article on Cochin Jews, it states that they emigrated following the destruction of "the Temple" around 70 CE, which would refer to the Second Temple. I then sought a non-WIkipedia source and found that JewishEnclopedia.com traced the earliest evidence of a Jewish presence in India to around 750.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=558&letter=C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinyuma (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * While I like this timeline, even Jussay considers that an earlier arrival may have happened. Going to be a bit hard to "prove" either way. The "borrow" words (see Jussay ref) may have to be taken seriously. Meaning they may have arrived earlier than the documented evidence. Student7 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be three different traditions about arrival Jews to Kerala.
 * 1. During King Solomon's time
 * 2. During exile at Babylon
 * 3. Destruction of the Second Temple
 * Although it is likely that Jews could have existed in Kerala before the destruction of the Second Temple if another tradition of Thomas in India is true too. But if we are to go by strict proven history, we are probably dealing with circular references of traditions being proven by other traditions. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 14:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Please remove semi-protection for Christianity in India. It not only contains several grammatical errors but only many misleading factual errors. Thank you.

Sikolia07 (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to request unprotection. WP:RPP is that place. Algebraist 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Untouchables
A user has referred to Dalit Christians as untouchables in the first section, which I think is very demeaning to Dalits and Christians in general in this age and time. Would someone be polite enough to edit that. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kariappa07 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC) --Kariappa07 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the problem? The sentence is sourced to three reliable sources, saying that they are former members of the untouchable castes. Note that Wikipedia is not the place to correct societal wrongs, we only report what has been documented. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly would you re-phrase it? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do the quotes around untouchables help? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * we are not talking about societal wrongs here, it is more a matter of the use of derogaroty terms. Would you allow someone to use the word nigger whilst discussing in a formal discussion?--Sikolia07 (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's referred to in a reliable source, yes. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is non-sensical--Sikolia07 (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While that is technically allowed (per WP:NOTCENSORED) I don't really think using nigger would be really acceptable, its only one word and Dalit basically means the same thing (but is more polite) - so it adds nothing of value to the article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is it nonsensical? We're here to write what the references say, not put our own value judgements on anything. If you can't remain neutral then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reworded slightly to better reflect what the sources actually say (see the quotes in the references). I understand that the term "untouchable," though still widely used outside India, has been replaced by "Dalit" or "Scheduled Caste." -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

On the latest changes made today by Varanwal
I got this comment on my talk page: -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC) "About the christianity in India page, we should not put wild claims like St. Thomas converted Kings and tribes of North India to Christianity based on no claims. In fact in Muslims of South Asia and Middle-east, there is a popular belief that ENGLAND's ruler had converted to Islam during 7th century. Fables like St. Thomas Acts are not verified and accepted by most Christians. If you visit St. Thomas article, you will see that he has been linked with one or another king from Russia to India throughout middle-east. Also, the article itself has links to disprove these fables Eastern Christian writings state that Christianity was introduced to India by Thomas the Apostle, who visited Muziris in Kerala in 52 CE to proselytize amongst Kerala's Jewish settlements; however this is widely disputed due to lack of credible historical evidence. I hope you uphold the standards of wikipedia. thanks note: such wild claims cause much pain to non-Christians of India. Please dont play with our history and culture. We should learn to respect."

Edit request from JustAGal, 18 May 2010
Under the Early Christianity in India section, I would like to dismbig St. Thomas (in the caption of the photo of Mar Thoma Church) to point to Thomas the Apostle and not the disambig page Saint Thomas. Thank you

JustAGal (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Its only got full-protection until the 24th May, so if no admins reply you can make your edit then. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Should the text say Thomas the apostle or is St. Thomas ok? --RegentsPark (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that St. Thomas is ok. Thanks for the quick response! :-) --JustAGal (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Content on Dalit Christians
Can you guys discuss this and not edit war over it? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I had included the stat info (%) of Dalit Christians in the lead, but it was removed by User:Deepak D'Souza explaining that "This article is about Christianity, not Christians in India so highlighting a single group in the lead is WP:UNDUE". In agreement with the user; assuming that the user objected to giving undue weight to dalit christians in lead, i included it in the Demographics section. Much to my surprise, it was reverted by the same user, this time maintaining that "article discusses "Christianity" not "Christians". The demographic section discusses the numbers for each sect, not for ethnic groups."Dalit Christians" are an ethnic group not a sect".

Well, my main rationale for including info on dalit christians is that Christianity is a religion that has come and spread in India, and therefore it is important to note who mainly accepted Christianity. I see that the demographic section chickens out from acknowledging Caste system among Indian Christians. We do not have different articles in Wikipedia like "Christianity in India" and "Christians in India"; and therefore in this context the distinction between "demographics of Christians" and "demographics of Christianity" is but a false dichotomy. Moreover, strictly speaking "Dalit" or "Dalit christians" for that matter are not a single ethnic group but rather an umbrella term. The article also have no problem mentioning the Khasis, Mizos, and the Nagas, but no space for dalit Christians. Requesting comments from all. Thanks. Arjun 024  14:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair enough to me. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've readded the content as User:Deepak D'Souza has been online since and hasn't commented here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow this has to be the quickest dispute resolution I have been involved in. The least you could do was wait 24 hours for opposing comments. Just because I have been online doesnt necessarily mean I have time to discuss immediately. I have waited for 7 days and on some occasions even a whole month but I guess we live in a very fast paced world. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well to be perfectly honest I thought it was pretty cut and dried in User:arjun024's favour as he pointed out that there weren't any other suitable places to include the information, my apologies if I moved too quickly. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the accuracy of the source; but that is another issue altogether. My point is that ethnicity or caste based is unnecessary in an article about the religion. This article should discuss about the relegion, not about the ethnic communites. It will be relvant in: Christians in India but not here. This article should only contain demographic info about the Christain sects in India. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that Christians in India is a redirect to this page, then it seems that the reasonable article to include the information here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, this has to be the silliest mistake I made on Wikipedia. I wasnt even aware that Christians in India redirected here. Sorry. I rest my case. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Caste discrimination or caste practices are not applicable or acceptable in/to Christian demographics (not only by the official stands of several Church denominations but also by Government mandate. At the risk of taking the discussion to a personal level, I would like to point out that the user User:arjun024 is clearly a Hindu communalist (as his profile picture clearly implies) and therefore can only provide a disparaging/biased view of the subject. Since the churches do not recognise caste as part of Christian demographics, neither does the Government recognise castes in Indian Christianity and therefore does not consider Dalit Christians for Scheduled Caste priviledges, the term does not apply to Indian Christians. --Centaurcentral (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion is close to Deepak's on this, I'm not sure if the source is right and that could be challenged if we find something different, but the content belongs here since there isn't a specific article on the demographics of Christians in India. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Personal opinions do not matter.--Centaurcentral (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad we agree that your personal opinion shouldn't matter given the reasoned policy based opinion of four editors above. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:centaurcentral that the Dalit Christians are neither recognized by the church or the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kariappa07 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because caste practices are not accepted by the church doesn't let the Caste system among Indian Christians dissolve into thin air. Many practices that are un-acceptable or considered not applicable by a religious authority or the government happen in communities around the globe. They have to be acknowledged in an encyclopedia. Accommodating some elements of the Indian caste system is a characteristic of Indian Christianity and articulating about the same neglecting this fact (according to me) qualifies as Bias. About the sources - If i remember it right, i copy pasted it from somewhere; i don't remember myself verifying it in any way. Plus; Centaurcentral, thanks for deciphering me from a Swastika.  Arjun  codename024


 * Since neither the church nor the government recognises caste as an acceptable criterion to classify Christian demograpics, on what authority can you do this and that too in a demeaning tone referring to Dalits as untouchables I agree that it is a historical fact and there I am not against it being mentioned in a historical section like it has already been mentioned in the Hindu-Christian conflict section --Centaurcentral (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, wikipedia doesn't go by 'what is recognized by church or the govt. It rather publishes verifiable facts. the reference to Dalits were previously known as untouchables. i refuse to accept your allegation of having used a demeaning term. Dalit article says Dalit is a self-designation for a group of people traditionally regarded as untouchable. "the previously known as" was given for better understanding of those people not used to the term "Dalit". we are talking here about demographics; there is no point in talking about the conflict part. Don't go away from our topic. Arjun  codename024 20:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should include verifiable facts that pertain to the subject not just any verifiable facts. Dalit Christians are only historical vestiges and therefore should only be included in sections dealing with History such as the Hindu-Christian conflict--Centaurcentral (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC).


 * Untouchables is definitely a derogatory term. As for the inclusion of dalit christians in the demographics section, I agree with centaurcentral that it is not an acceptable measure for classifying indian christians User:Kariappa07 —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Dalit Christians are very much in the present. (Not only Dalit christians, but) every caste-associated label in every religion in India is a legacy of the historical caste system. if you are trying to say that christians do not practice Caste system at all and so every caste-associated term is forbidden; the very existence of the article Caste system among Indian Christians disproves your case; and Wikipedia is not censored.  Arjun  codename024 05:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This article does not deal with caste system and even if caste system was discussed in the article, it should be in a section that deals with historical aspects and not demographics --Centaurcentral (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, its clear that you are saying; cast system is non-existent among today's christians (which is the church's official POV as u once said) which is factually wrong ( cf. my previous reply).  Arjun  codename024 06:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When the article India itself does not include caste in its demographics, why would you want to include it in Christianity in India which does not even have a caste system, unless you're trying to disparage the religion and besides the percentage numbers are also wrong --Centaurcentral (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When Hinduism itself does not discuss caste in any of the main sections. There is only a brief mention of it in one of the last sections of lesser importance, why are you insisting on discussing caste at the beginning of the demographics sections here when caste itself is taboo in Christianity? --Centaurcentral (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The first line in the view source of the article states the following: "PLEASE NOTE INDIAN CHRISTIANS ARE NOT AN ETHNIC GROUP, INFOBOX USED FOR DEMOGRAPHIC DATA." What else do we need to reaffirm the fact that Indian Christians cannot be classified on ethnic basis especially caste.
 * Caste itself is not original to Christianity and has its roots in Hinduism. If caste system (the practice of which is clearly extinct in urban Christian communities and the vast majority of Indian Christians are urban dwellers) is only a social factor that is common to all Indian communities irrespective of religion and region. Therefore, a special mention of it in the demographics sections is unnecessary especially when it is not officially recognized by the state or the church. --Centaurcentral (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hinduism article does mention the Varna system, from which caste system is believed to have taken shape. I have already expressed my rationale in including this info and that Dalits are no ethnic group. If you have problems with sources or the stats, we can discuss that. But you are pressing not to mention info on dalit christians at all. You want to censor wikipedia from showing something that exists because its a taboo in the religion or not recognized by the church, which is not acceptable (How many times i have to say this).  Arjun  codename024 10:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of Dalit Christian Demographic data, (if sourced from a RS). The caste system was an important factor for conversions and there are enough issues in present day about Dalit Christians to warrant a small inclusion in the Demographics section. Whether the govt or church sanction it or not is a moot point. the practice of which is clearly extinct in urban Christian communities and the vast majority of Indian Christians are urban dwellers - this is a personal opinion. Where i come from, the "Dalit Christian" phenomenon clearly exists.--Sodabottle (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I might have to cite this again: The first line in the view source of the article states the following: "PLEASE NOTE INDIAN CHRISTIANS ARE NOT AN ETHNIC GROUP, INFOBOX USED FOR DEMOGRAPHIC DATA." What else do we need to reaffirm the fact that Indian Christians cannot be classified on ethnic basis especially caste. --Centaurcentral (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Any religious grouping can have ethnic composition. If there is a significant section among Indian Christians that calls itself (and called by others) as "dalit christians", then it is perfectly valid to classify them as such. "cannot be classified" is your personal opinion, as the links provided by me and others show, many among the "Dalit christians" identify themself so and have been demanding recognition as such and reservation since 1950. --Sodabottle (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I dare say that the very notion of caste that exist(ed) in Indian society is(was) a driving force in conversions to Christianity. And caste-derived labels like "Dalit Christians" are a result of it, and exists as distinct communities to this day. This type of distinction that is not universal to Christianity is but a sine qua non of Indian Christianityor rather the Indian Christian demographic.  Arjun  codename024 03:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a Catholic, I can say that, at least the Catholic church in India accepts "Dalit Christians" as a distinct social entity for remedial action and has been demanding that they should be beneficiaries of the same measures that are available to Hindu and neo-Hindu Dalits. It should be pretinent to point out the reason for this stand: They belive that conversion to Christianity has not changed the status of Dalits as a downtrodden class in social standing, nor has it saved them from social and economic discrimination; be it at the hands of Hindu or Christian upper-castes, that is irrelevant. That Christianity does not discriminate according to caste is a spiritual issue. The ground reality does not change for Dalit Christians so lets not argue any more on this point. My primary concern remains the reliability of the numbers. At 70% of the Christian population the number of Dalits v/s the rest seems too great. It seems disproportional to the actual ethnic and caste breakup. COnisdering that tribals make up a large part of the Christian population, even the 30% percent seems too little for them. And where does that leave the "other" castes and clastless groups? Logically they dont even exist if we have to take this statistic at face value. It simply cannot be correct. Unless the author has done some major jugglery, such as inlcduign all non-Brahmin groups as "Dalits" or probablly counted STs as "Dalit" a figure of 70% is impossible. My guess: Dalits cannot make up more than 30-40% max, tribals probably account for one-third of the statistic and the remaining one-third to other castes and casteless groups. Im curious as to where the authors got the numbers from. GOI does not ask Christians for caste info in the census. So how did they arrive at this number. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With you on the veracity of the stats, but it could be that they include all tribals (technically ST) and true Dalits (SC) in this stat. While the term Dalit initially was used exclusively for SCs, it has now become more common to use it for STs. Eitherways, a better source for the numbers has to be found. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * i now had a quick search in google books and google news archive; which actually returned figures like 65, 70, 80 to 90 for percentage of "Dalit Christians" among christians in India. Well, personally i do not have a good picture about christian demographics in India, apart from Kerala where i know majority of them are not Dalits. I wonder where they got this data given caste-based census were not conducted for the last 70 yrs atleast; nonetheless i would like to stress that it doesn't feel to be true should not be the rationale to make edits.  Arjun  codename024 07:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All caste demographic data currently used (apart from the 1931 census) is usually sourced from the National Sample Survey (NSS) taken once in five years. As it is a "survey" and not a count, results vary. So data for all castes (including dalit christians) is so-so. What we can do do is add a line like "estimates of the percentage of dalit christians vary from 65 to 90". But I agree with Spiff, there need to better sources than those currently added.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 65 to 80. (found "80 to 90" in just one instance).  Arjun  codename024 08:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 90% is simply off the scale. If that was really true, then Dalit issues should dominate Christian lay discourse which isnt the case. IMO, it is possible that one statistic (correct or incorrect) has been circularly referenced and possibly pumped up in the process until 70% became some kind of gospel truth. I wouldnt take everthing I find in Google Books as valid; one of the results I came up with denies that "Dalit Christians" exist. Interestingly the article on Dalit puts the figure as only 9% which seems too low. Wonder where that figure came from. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, its sourced from the Sachar Committee Report and is based on the NSSO's 61st survey. Well my guess was at least correct for STs :-D

--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity_in_India&action=edit&section=30
 * Christians:
 * SC:9.0
 * ST:32.8
 * OBC:24.8
 * 1) Others: 33.3
 * So, should the info on Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes be presented rather than that of Dalits which looks ambiguous and the figures seem enigmatic w.r.t Sachar info? . Arjun  codename024 07:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we stick to the NSSO's figures. Agreed that NSSO's surveys are prone to the same errors as any survey, but they are more likely to be closer to the real numbers than a bunch of books written by authors who either did not have access to reliable figures at the time they wrote, or depended on hearsay. Anyway, most of them throw roundabout figures and do not cite their figures which, to me, indicates that they are just "guesstimates". We could include the NSSO figures in a table instead of just giving SC figures. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I notice that an IP editor is using an alleged consensus on this page as the reason for deleting all mention of numbers for Dalit Christians (even in other articles specifically about Dalits), as well as some large-scale deletion of blocks of text about Dalits. I would suggest:
 * No such large-scale deletions without a broad consensus to do so.
 * No removal of sourced numbers, unless they are replaced by a more reliable figure (a figure backed up by a book is better than nothing, though not as good as a reliable number).
 * A separate "poll" thread on what the most reliable source should be, since it's hard to work out what the emerging consensus is here. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of moving the discussion on demographics in this article to the Demographics section, with a brief summary of it elsewhere. That should make maintenance easier. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should go with the NSSO figures as they are the only official figures available, all others have obviously been guesses --75.134.157.143 (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see more info on the NSSO survey before agreeing: how reliable are those numbers, actually? In any case, the 70-80% figure is sufficiently notable that even if the NSSO figures are included, I'd like to see wording such as "Although 70-80% of Indian Christians are widely reported to be Dalit Christians (former members of the Dalit castes, previously known as "untouchables"),[references] a [details of survey] found that [details of results]." That would clarify the relationship with other articles where the 70-80% figure is also given. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Type search word Christian in here Table 1.2: Distribution of Population of each Religion by Caste Categories All India-2004-05 Religion/Caste SCs STs OBCs Others All Hindu 22.2 9.1 42.8 26.0 100 Muslim 0.8 0.5 39.2 59.5 100 Christians 9.0 32.8 24.8 33.3 100 Sikhs 30.7 0.9 22.4 46.1 100 Jains 0.0 2.6 3.0 94.3 100 Buddhists 89.5 7.4 0.4 2.7 100 Zoroastrians 0.0 15.9 13.7 70.4 100 Others 2.6 82.5 6.2 8.7 100 Total 19.7 8.5 41.1 30.8

The 70-80% figures are manipulated for political purposes. --75.134.157.143 (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've seen the Sachar report, which is not the same as the NSS survey itself, and doesn't describe things like sample size and methodology. It seems that the 70% figure often quoted conflates the SC, ST, and OBC categories (which add up to 66.6% in the above figures). I don't know if that's reasonable, given that SC/ST/OBC are official categories defined by the government (i.e. relating to legal status), but Dalit Christian is to some extent a self-identifying category (primarily relating to social status). However, the existence of a Dalit Christian community within Indian Christians isn't something that Wikipedia can ignore, in my opinion.
 * You appear to suggest that some political group you disapprove of is quoting the 70-80% figures, but that doesn't tell us anything about the reliability of the figures. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ST and OBC are not Dalits! Scheduled Castes are Dalits. The reliability of the figures comes from the fact that they are the only figures that have a citation and they are the only available official figures--75.134.157.143 (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This report suggests that "per a rough estimate" there are 16 million Christian Dalits (which would be about 66.6% of Christians, I believe). I have no idea where that number came from, and how it relates to the NSS data, but that number appears frequently on the 'net. Is the NSS distinguishing between people with SC status and people with an SC background but no legal SC status? -- Radagast 3  (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As the name itself suggests, this is an alternate report with no citations whatsoever. I am not willing to go by hearsay or any random report. I think the author has "arrived" at the 16 million figure by including Dalits who are not Christian but intend to become Christian once SC status is extended to Christian Dalits. As for the political motivations I was referring to, Hindu Fundamentalists are so keen on the 70 to 80% figure as they would like to malign and project the Christian religion as primarily a Dallit religion implying that it spread through sops and incentives provided by missionaries and not genuine conversion which is obviously not the case. Not to mention the social stigma they would like to attach to the religion--75.134.157.143 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Vatican uses the 70% figure too. I'm sure they have no such motivation. And, although I'm an outsider, I thought the whole point of the political debate was the existence of Christians of Dalit origin but without legal SC status? -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason the Vatican uses the 70% figure is because 1) they do not have a choice because the the percentages have been pumped up and projected as almost infallible for far too long now, nobody has ever looked into the matter until the NSSO figures came up 2) the other issue is the Dalit Christian controversy of extending SC status to Dalits which if accomplished would mean an exponential increase in the number of Indian Catholics/Christians from new conversions. (We all know about this, it's all over the internet)

Vatican never conducted a survey in India and hence we cannot go by what the Vatican uses. The origins of these pumped up percentages lie in colonial days when Hindu fundamentalists tried to portray Indian Christianity as something that spread through coercion. Fundamentalists still use these "figures" today to further their cause of anti-conversion laws stating that only disadvantaged classes adopt Christianity and that Christian missionaries woo them into converting to Christianity thereby dismissing all conversions as dubious or forced conversions. The NSSO figures have shown that is not the case.--75.134.157.143 (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on the motivations you assign to various people, although I assume the Vatican has a reasonable idea of the number of Dalit Catholics, just from asking local bishops, and from internal Catholic committees on Dalit affairs. However, the article would probably benefit from (1) finding the actual NSSO figures (rather than an incidental mention in a report about Muslims), and (2) finding what specific survey questions from the NSSO led to the SC/ST/OBC figures. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article would also benefit if you could find out from where the authors came up with the 70% figures. None of the books given as references have any citations whatsoever. Atleast the figures in the Sachar Report are referenced to the 1st and the 10th schedule of NSSO 61st Round Survey. I don't see why you insist on including information that is unsubstantiated. Wikipedia is not the place for myths, it's rather a place for facts.--75.134.157.143 (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The books and newspaper reports as cited are (barely) adequate references per Wikipedia policy. If you have the actual data from the NSSO 61st Round Survey, including the list of specific survey questions, that would be a significant improvement of course.
 * And, quite frankly, I find it impossible to believe that the frequently quoted 70% figure can be wrong by an entire order of magnitude: if such an enormous error had been made, it would have been commented on in the debate on the issue. It seems more likely to me that different definitions of the word "Dalit" are involved. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because something is frequently quoted doesn't mean that it is the gospel truth. Something that is not proven yet commonly believed is called a myth in the English language. And in reference to your comment "if such an enormous error had been made, it would have been commented on in the debate on the issue." Yes ofcourse, it has been mentioned more than once in this debate. Please refer to the contributions of user Deepak. As for you comment "books and newspaper reports as cited are (barely) adequate references per Wikipedia policy."- It applies to your own stand on including the 70% figure which is based simply on books and newspapers with no citations or offical sources.--75.134.157.143 (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which is why the "widely reported to be" wording is reasonable: expressed in those terms it's a clear fact -- the 70% figure truly is widely reported.
 * As to the actual numbers, if you check, you'll see that Deepak thinks 9% is too low. In my opinion, that 9% can't simply be reported as the "official answer" without a clearer idea of who is and who isn't included in the 9%. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The actual NSSO 61st round report with sample size included http://mospi.gov.in/national_data_bank/pdf/516_final.pdf--75.134.157.143 (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * oops sorry, here's the right link: you might have to create a user id and password to view the page http://mospi.nic.in/rept%20_%20pubn/ftest.asp?rept_id=521&type=NSSO--75.134.157.143 (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't seem to work. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And tracking that report down shows that it's an employment report which doesn't contain the Sachar c'ttee figures at all, nor discuss the "social group" questions. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an employment report and information of caste based diversity among religious groups was collected for the same purpose. It provides us with the methodology and sample size used for arriving at the consensus. The survey has asked for caste groups and religious groups in block 3. Type search word scheduled caste. I posted the link because you wanted details of sample size and methodology. The Sachar committee used the information collected in the survey to arrive at the current figures. We can infer that it a pretty good survey by all current standards. Here's another link with detailed information from the department of minority affairs which is definitely a more reliable source: http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/newsite/reports/di_expgrp/di_expgrp.pdf The current figures are also widely cited. Just search for distribution of population by caste groups on the internet. --75.134.157.143 (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen the numbers from the Sachar report on the 'net, but generally taken from the Sachar report, not from some original NSSO report. In fact, I can't find any publicly available NSSO report on the subject. In particular, I can't find the specific criteria under which people were included in the SC/ST/OBC/other classes. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Relook
Well a lot has been said and done in this discussion. Sorry for re-starting this a bit late; I was busy. I will ennumerte my concerns in the hope of facilitate discussion:

--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) the lead line fo the demographics section focusses exclusively on Dalits although there is no solid basis for the 70% figure.
 * 2) Many of the sources that cite the 70% (and upwards of 90%) cannot be called as scholarly works. None of them cite their sources for the figures.
 * 3) If Dalits really do make up 70% of the Christians as these sources say it should proportionaly reflect in Indian Christian conciousness. That isnt the case.
 * 4) While the NSSOs figures are results of surveys (and not a census) their numbers need not necessarily be accurate; but I belive that their figures are more closer to the actual truth than a bunch of "guesses"
 * 5) I have tried searching for the actuall NSSO numbers and couldn't find them. Nevertheless I dont see a problem in taking the numbers from the Sachar Report. After all, the Government of India takes NSSOs numbers to wrok on development schemes and other purposes.


 * There is indeed a problem with the widely reported 70% number: it's unclear where it comes from (although its wide acceptance suggests that it wouldn't be wildly wrong – not by an order of magnitude). But there's equally a problem with the NSSO figures: it's not clear what they mean, exactly. For example, the late Bishop John Mulagada was, I believe, a Dalit Christian, and the 70% figure clearly includes people like him. But would the NSSO survey have counted him in the SC category? In the absence of better documentation on the survey, it's difficult to be certain, and so it's not clear that the NSSO survey was measuring the same thing as the 70% estimate. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, the current version of the article seems to me to be worded carefully enough to be true. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)