Talk:Violence against Christians in India/Archive 1

Issue with putting up the picture=
The picture has no bearing on the topic. All that the picture depicts is a girl with burn injuries. The picture CANNOT show that the girl is a Christian, how she received her burn injuries or the religion of her so called perpetrators. Not only is the use of such a picture a clear case of POV, but even flame-baiting. This is not something that any self respecting encyclopedia should encourage. BESIDES, the picture sourced by Reuters is from a Christian site. Christian establishments in the past have been caught spreading lies against the Hindus and there could be a whole article on that if the Christians so wish. The wikipedia is no place to raise religious sympathy, play victim or push one's agenda! This picture will be removed, for ALL the above mentioned reasons, unless there is a coherent justification to use the same properly countering the aforesaid points. TheOnlyEmperor (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Since no justification has been provided, the inappropriate photo has been removed. TheOnlyEmperor (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-added. Reuters is a reliable source, and there is nothing to back up your claims that "...Reuters is from a Christian site. Christian establishments in the past have been caught spreading lies against the Hindus and there could be a whole article on that if the Christians so wish."
 * The image shows injuries sustained during Anti-Christian violence in India. It's a valid insertion regardless of who the subject is.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Issues with sources
A number of Christian news websites have been used to source this article. These websites have a clear conflict of interest, since they were made to raise awareness on persecution against Christians. Given their natural bias, these websites are not reliable sources. Please reference the article from neutral sources. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * These sites, especially Christian Solidarity Wordwide is also used as a reference in the Christianity in India article. See this . However an effort is going on to find reliable and neutral sites. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:RS states partisan sources should be avoided at all costs. CSW is partisan, its like asking Hindu Unity to interpret the world and then give them a soapbox on wiki. It should be removed on sight. Baka man  00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Link 3 is from MANAS, a known POV anti-Hindu site. Link 1 and 3 do not substantiate rapes of nuns. Jobxavier (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A picture of a burnt girl has been put. Please avoid such stuff which may cause further divide within harmonal Indian society. Even Hindus can put such stuff, what Christian fanatics in Chattisgarh, North-East India are commiting towards Hindus n Buddhists. When You are mentioning about Sangh Parivars communal activity then you also should mention about unethical conversions activities by Christian missionaries which is the main cause of irritaion for Hindus, Sikhs n Buddhists. Even Mahatama Gandhi's Book does mention about unethical conversions by Christian Missionaries in India. Indianprithvi (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Christian Solidarity Worldwide receives the most foreign contributions and is on the watch list of India's External Affairs, Home and Finance departments. It might soon be banned in India

Jobxavier (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Only USA and UNO warnings are seen. Warnings from other countries may also be added. Donations are welcome from anywhere. Jobxavier (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I vote to remove this article.

(1) This is propaganda. Not knowledge base. Not history. (2) This divides people. We hindus will start hating christians and the otherway. That is the only result of this propaganda. Benefited only by the Christian organizations indulging in conversions through charity.

Thanks Omanakuttan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.48.21 (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Genuine violence on Christians is being deleted by someone with POV
The sad Sister Abhaya murder case is an example of violence perpetrated against Christians. It so happens that it was perpetrated by insiders. For some reason, a person with POV keeps removing this information, which has been validated by human rights workers as a genuine violation of human rights.Ezhava (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen such manipulative statement. See below. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And also assume good faith. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid your statements are a little self-contradictory. You claim that any violence perpetrated by Christians is 'criminal', but any violence perpetrated on Christians is ipso facto 'religious'. This, alas, shows a clear POV. There is the Muringoor Center incident, where 975 Christians have been murdered. You surely don't claim this is also 'criminal'? 975 people over 10 years? I am sorry, that is religious violence targeting Christians. Ezhava (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No calim of mine is self-contradictory. I have never said that any violence perpetrated by Christians is criminal. In this article only those facts will remain which are Religious violence. The argument you are showing is clearly POV. In this article there is no general crime incident and general crime incidents will not stay here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You objected to merging this with 'Religious violence' in the AfD because you wanted to have something that was about 'Violence against Christians'. Now you change your mind and do not want 'Violence against Christians'. I am sorry, that is contradictory. You are, in effect, saying, "My POV is better than anybody else's POV". This is not in the right spirit. Ezhava (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Now you change your mind and do not want Violence against Christians" whoa? who changed mind? Do not try to misinterprete my statement. I objected because it is about 'Violence against Christians'. Now what 'Violence against Christians' mean? I hope any person with minimum knowledge in Religion and Religious violence will understand. 'Violence against Christians' mean violence against some people because they are Christians. Sister Abhaya murder case was not Religious violence. Sister Abhaya was not murdered for her religion, she was not murdered due to her Christian admiration. This deliberate disparging of the article's subject and misinterpretation of other's statement is not good faith. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate manipulation is being done with POV
First of all maintain WP:CIVIL. Sister Abhaya murder case was an criminal incident, a rape and homicide case. This was not religiously motivated incident. It is completely absurd to claim this incidence as anti-Christian violence. According to your argument, any rape of Hindu woman by some Hindu mob can be referred to as anti-Hindu violence. Any snacting of a Hindu person by some Hindu gangsters can be referred to as anti-Hindu violence. Absurd argument. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Vvarkey: You have, without answering the points in the Discussion page, reverted a big NPOV edit. I shall have to report you If you do this again. i shall watch the next such Revert and check the Id of the Editor.

Jobxavier (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph
I double-checked the sources, and none of them seemed to confirm what the paragraph said, that this nun was murdered because of her religion by a Christian. In fact, they didn't even seem to confirm that she was killed by a Christian. Not being able to verify that the information was accurate, I removed it for now, but once the two of you are unblocked, you'll be able to discuss it in more detail, and if there's another source that can verify the information, you'll be able to add it then. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian centre in Kerala
While this may suggest Anti-Christian prejudice and violence, nowhere in the article does it say without question that this is Anti-Christian violence perpetrated by Hindus, instead it covers a tragic denial of justice allegedly because of some wealthy influential members of society. So at this point it is Original Research. Darrowen (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably WP:SYN. These were input by user Ezhava. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also removed some of the incidents you listed from the Vinay Lal article. Those incidents were against Christians, but in no way, does the article or the Vinay Lal piece explain how they were religiously-motivated. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not some incidents, that is one incident, only one incident - the murder of George Kuzhikandam. I have just written it from the Vinay Lal article. I agree with you particularly in this George Kuzhikandam case. I google searched twice about George Kuzhikandam murder case. But all the references I found mention that the motivation behind the murder is not clear, some list it as anti-Christian, others say it for money. So it is better not to mention this incident. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Restored
Since violence against Christians in India has become a major issue, I am restoring this article. In light of recent events such as Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka and Religious violence in Orissa, I wish to mention it briefly under this article with details in cited articles. Anyone who thinks the article unwarrantable can over again take it to AfD or request for a fresh merge proposal, which is the place for a discussion. But note that in light of recent incidents, it is evident that this independent article is really worth keeping. Thank you. --Googlean (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I find that the same editors figure in all POV insertions in any Article related to Indian Christians. Jobxavier (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

POV PROPAGANDA
1. "The acts of violence include arson of churches, forcible conversion of Christians to

Hinduism, distribution of threatening literature, burning of Bibles, raping of nuns, murder

of Christian priests and destruction of Christian schools, colleges, and cemeteries"

Links should be given to substantiate rape of nuns.

2. That violence began only when missionaries started converting illiterates and the

impoverished should be mentioned. The various legislations in the States against

proselytisation are relevant.

3. " UCLA history professor Vinay Lal believes the increase in anti-Christian violence in

India bears a direct relationship to the ascendancy of the Bharatiya Janata Party

(BJP).[3]"

Violence began after 1984 when Rajiv Gandhi became PM. That his wife was an Italian

Catholic led to assertion by Christians.

4. "Anti-Christian sentiment in India dates back to the colonial period when successive

Portuguese, French and British forces made attempts to convert portions of the Indian

population" The Goan Inquisition should be mentioned here.

5. " Since 1998, Christians in India have faced a wave of violence.[5] In 1998 alone, 90

incidents were reported.[3]" In 1998, Sonia Gandhi became an MP.

6. "...against "forcible conversion" activities undertaken by missionaries,[6] a claim

described as "absurd" and rejected by scholars;[3"

Only Christian fundamentalists have described it as absurd. Link 3 is from MANAS site.

7. "In September 2008, two churches were partly damaged in Kerala. [9]" The suspects revealed to the Police that they had been asked to do so by elements

within the Church to divert attention from sex scandals and money allegations.

8. "Some Hindu activists forcefully removed the Christmas decoration, resulting in

many deaths and the destruction of houses and churches.[10][11]"

The NCM reported that the Pandhal had been put up in a piece of land traditionally

used by Hindus as part of religion. The attack on a Hindu Swami triggered the violence.

9. "Murder of Graham Staines" That he was proselytising with Australian money in backward areas is relevant.

10. "Politics"

A very POV paragraph. Sonia Gandhi should be brought in here.

11. "National Commission for Minorities" That it has only non-Hindu members is relevant. Also the New Light Church had been distributing vulgar palmphlets against Hindu gods in Karnataka, which finally led to retaliation.

I am actually picking up lessons in Propaganda from the articles in WP on anti-Christian violence.

I request the POV editors to discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobxavier (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Vvarkey: You have, without answering the points in the Discussion page, reverted a big NPOV edit. I shall have to report you If you do this again. i shall watch the next such Revert and check the Id of the Editor.

Jobxavier (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobxavier (talk • contribs)


 * jobxavier - please let me know which edit you are referring to. i will try to give my reasoning. I believe I have maintained NPOV. thanks --vvarkey (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

VVarkeys : Please read my comments in this Page

Jobxavier (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read them, but they're quite general and directed at all editors. Is there a specific change that you wish to discuss? Thanks --vvarkey (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Gujarat In Gujarat, there has been a sharp increase in violent attacks on Christians. Recently, a Hindu group claims to have converted 2,000 tribal Christians to Hinduism. The attackers had vandalized places of worship and thus caused strike terror among the tribals. On 18 September, the Central Government issued an advisory under Article 355 of the constitution to the Orissa government along with Karnataka. [12] [13]"       This does not make sense. Is the para about Gujarat or Orissa and Karnataka?

Jobxavier (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

SUGGESTION TO DELETE POV ARTICLE
The Article is entirely POV and a mere exercise in propaganda. This does not bring credit to WP. The author and POV editors should be suitably counselled. The Article should be deleted. Violence is only against Conversion; not against Christians. In Kerala, where one-fourth of Indian Christians live, there has never been any violence.

Jobxavier (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your rationale is absolutely pathetic and misleading. It is well written article which has completely supported by Reliable sources. Each & every sentence was properly sourced. If there is reliable sources support an article, it is not called council, it is called universal truth. There are many reasons behind violence. Conversion can be one of such reasons. As BBC, NDTV & Times of India reported, the base is all Anti-Christian violence and that should be the proper title. Who said there is no violence reported from Kerala? Take off your time and search for it. |xOZ5Y=&SEO= This is one evidence. Did you know that last month itself there are many churches and prayer homes were vandalized in Kerala. --Googlean (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

At least, the Catholic Bishops of Kerala do not share your POV. Please see You will agree that a propaganda initiative has always been on against India and Hindus on the Net. For example, when a Hindu servant [a prospectuve convert) succumbed to burns in Orissa, the world was immediately told that a nun had been burnt alive. It is known that every imaginary hurt is over-publicised only to get more foreign donations. Remember how the Tsunami brought forth well-received appeals from churches in non-Tsunami hit areas of Kerala, with pictures of 'hit' churches. Nevertheless, I appreciate your Crusades-like enthusuasm.

Jobxavier (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Moved by consensus. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-conversion violence in India → Anti-Christian violence in India. The previous move was bad faith as it was not properly discussed. As BBC, NDTV & Times of India and other well known Reliable sources reported (see article reference list), Anti-Christian violence is the proper title. Additionally, if anyone searches for both titles in any search engine, Anti-Christian violence comes with [] more than 10,000 hits. On the other hand, [] shown zero results. What I am saying is that there are many reasons behind the violence. Not only by conversion which is merely discussed by media and not at all suitable for the title. Therefore, the current move is unwarrantable and it should be reverted to the previous title. --Googlean (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Per my comment above. --Googlean (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I moved the article to "Violence Against Christian in India". I apologize, it should have been with consensus here in the discussion. I am not able to undo my change, and don't think i should move the article again back to "Anti conversion". As reasoned above, the title Anti-conversion violence in India does not make sense. It is not only missionaries that are targets. It is the Christian community as a whole --vvarkey (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - In addition to millions of google hits, have a look at DNA, guardian, Hindustan Times and yahoo, all speaks about Anti-Christian violence in India which is the proper title, not any Anti-conversion. --Googlean (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Votes moved from WP:RM

 * Support This move was taken without discussion by a long-term disruptive editor. Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I moved the article again without realizing it was under Wikipedia:Requested Moves. I support this move, please move the article as you see fit once it's approved here. My reasoning is that the Christian community as a whole is being targeted, rather than only missionaries. --vvarkey (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(Note that one of these is already duplicated above, but in slightly different terms. Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

Move protection
This page has been moved so many times as a POV statement that it's approaching ridiculousness. I've move-protected it for 72 hours to allow time for discussion and consensus building.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Page is pure POV. It should be deleted. It seems to be missionary propaganda to create sympathy in the West to induce more donations to missionary outfits in India.

Jobxavier (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As an outsider and an uninvolved editor, I have to say that I'm concerned about your POV. You seem to regularly bringing up this issue, and yet it is repeatedly told to you that the article is well-referenced. It seems that you are trying to make a point, which is inappropriate. If you have issues with referenced information, or if you believe a cited reference is unreliable, please address that specifically, but your overall accusations and your repeated move attempts show pretty clearly your own blatant POV. I'm asking you to back off a bit, and keep you comments here neutral.  AK Radecki Speaketh  04:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You have ignored that the references are POV. Jobxavier (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Jobxavier : Vandalism final warning

 * Jobxavier: you have again vandalized the article. you've removed the well sourced image yet again. You have inserted the same unreferenced text about Sonia Gandhi. You do this on an almost daily basis. Please consider this as a final warning. The next time I will be forced to report you. Thanks. --vvarkey (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Varkeys - Please do not be upset at the face of truth. Some editors are using the WP for  missionary propaganda presumably to invoke western sympathy and get them to donate more.  Stand by to project NPOV here.

I should report you for vandalisimg my Edits and any non-anti India POV anywhere in WP. You have filled WP with anti-India POV. You also indulge in name calling and personal attacks. However, If the pic would help your mission in any way, let it remain. It is World Solidarity POV?

Jobxavier (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

US State Department
Source that does not verify data cannot be accepted. Jobxavier (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this unacceptable POV data with original research be removed.

Jobxavier (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Using children's pics to push POV
The child's pic cannot be used to push POV. There is no independent proof about the pic. Using a fake and touched up pic of a minor and child is churlish. It must be removed. Jobxavier (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jobxavier. Please see this link: [See Reuters section] See image 8 of 30. This is the same image, from reuters, which is a reliable source . (this info was provided by RecordFreeNow) --vvarkey (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The pic is from the AICC site, a POV site. Even in India, a heathen country, there are rules prohibiting use of children and their pics maliciously. I repeat that this is a childish style of POV. I resent your Hate-India POV. Jobxavier (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jobxavier, you are saying too many lies without any reference or evidence. Please add evidences, instead of blindly put your pov remarks. --Googlean (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"you are saying too many lies "?? A very childish remark; or you do not know what a lie means in English. I also note that you use usages like "absolutely pathetic and misleading" very freely. It is from the AICC site, put there within 24 hours of the beginning of the violence. It might not even be that of an Indian child. [Remember how they reported that a nun was burnt alive.] Reuters does not say the pic was taken by them. They only borrowed it from AICC. Recordfree got it from AICC only, as he has said elsewhere. Using gory pics of children [albeit doctored] for propaganda is against UN and WHO directives and cannot be allowed even by missionaries. The pic must be removed, Christian Solidarity POV or not. I am not removing it because I like it to remain as an example of proselytisation propaganda here. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Girl_sufferedwithburnwounds.jpg gives it that rhe pic is from AICC site. Summary Description English: A Christian girl who was bruised and burnt during the Orissa violence in August 2008. This girl was injured with burns bruises during anti Christian violence by Hindu nationalists. Source All India Christian council http://indianchristians.in/news/content/view/2332/45/ Date 31-08-2008  Author All India Christian Council Jobxavier (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest again that the disputed pic of the child used against international laws and conventions be removed.

Jobxavier (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Jobxavier: you deleted this image again, and i have reverted your edit. the AICC is a reliable source. It has a membership of some 5000 christian institutions. just because it has "Christian" in it's name, does not make it a POV source. As you can see for yourself, this same image has also been published by Reuters (the link has been provided to you many many times), and so clearly is reliable. additionally, the image has been discussed and approved at wikimedia. Your argument saying it is against internation laws is laughable at best. But i'm willing to discuss this aspect if you can provide links to the appropriate laws and conventions you mention. Please do so in this section. Thanks - --vvarkey (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Above discussion is very funny. I understand that a pic from a Christian site is used to push a POV. If it is from Reuters, do we have the Licence to use it? That even kids and raped women are not spared in the propaganda or donation-canvassing is obvious. WP is losing its neutrality and credulity this way. Who are these Editors that do such things so shamelessly? Are they anti-Christian or anti-WP? And what are the WP officials doing about all this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.96.200 (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NCM composition
Jobxavier - you continue to put back this text regarding NCM, saying that it has only non-Hindu members. That is simply not true. See the link National Commission for Minorities. For example, Dileep Padagaonkar is a prominent Hindu member. --vvarkey (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Harcharan Singh Josh a non-Hindu? --Googlean (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"A number of Konkani Christians are of Saraswat descent. While a small percentage of all Indian Christians, they dominate the Catholic church hierarchy in the country."

Harcharan Singh Josh is a Turban-wearing Sikh, not a Hindu.

Please tell me which of the others are Hindus? Thank you.

Jobxavier (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection
Because the edit war has continued despite my warnings to the provoking person, I'm protecting the article until people start discussing their proposed changes and supporting refs on the talk page. This war stops now, folks.  AK Radecki Speaketh  21:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You might have to protect all the anti-India pages, when they show anti-Indian POV only. They cannot then be edited to NPOV.

Jobxavier (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not any Anti-Indian POV or whatever you say. It is all properly sourced material. When you revert such an item, you probably are breaking NPOV guideline. -- Googlean   Results  04:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, properly sourced from Christian sites.

Jobxavier (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Discussion page itself begins with an Admin's saying that only Christian sites are used. Why is WP not deleting this article, if that be true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.96.200 (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

RE-CAPTIONING THE ARTICLE AS 'RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE' insread of 'Anti-Christian....'
Agreed that violence has been mutual, the title of the artcle should be changed as above. Or it should be deleted as an article that disparages the subject.

Jobxavier (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we need such articles in wiki? Please vote to remove this from wiki
Do we need such article in wiki? If yes I can provide several of them, with facts and proof, that describes how heneous cultural crimes are executed by chritian conversionist organizations in India. Please do vote to remove religious and propagandist articles from wiki. Let us keep wiki, a place for knowledge and information. Not for christian or hindu propaganda machine.

Thanks Omanakuttan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.48.21 (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the suggestion. Jobxavier (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Support
There is a question of garnering donations from America and Europe with sob stories of anti-Christian violence, involved in the large number of articles being posted on anti-Christian violence in India, with seperate articles for each every incident for whatever reason on anyone bearing a seemingly Christian name. This is good for India also because it brings in foreign direct investment. I have therefore, decided not to induce any more NPOV in this and similar articles because they are only belly-filling articles; and as such deserve sympathy. Jobxavier (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a very serious accusation, if true. Who is getting all this money? Is WP getting a share? Why has nobody answered this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.96.200 (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why was this section on Reasons behind anti-christian violence removed?
I posted this section and it was removed from this talk page without any reason given. Could someone give a reason:
 * I would like to add a section to the article titled "Reasons behind Anti-Christian violence in India" with the following point: You should ask the Jews, Parsis and the Buddhists in India whether there is religious violence against them. Jews and Parsis fled Islamic persecution to India 1200 years ago. For a thousand years not a single Parsi or Jew or Buddhist was killed by Hindus in the name of religion. Even now they are not targets. So IT IS the conversion factor that is the ONLY driving force behind violence between Hindus and Christians. They keep distributing pamphlets to Hindus demonizing Hindu gods and asking them to convert. Now if Hindus in New York start distributing pamphlets that said "Christianity is a corpse worshiping religion, its symbol is a stinking rotting naked bloody decaying corpse and its founder Jesus was gay because he couldn't get married." to all the Christians in New York year in and year out, how long do you think it will be before Christians in New York start retaliating? In fact when a theater in new york staged a play showing Jesus as a gay it was threatened to be burned to the ground. Do you still want to maintain that conversion and demonizing of Hindu gods is not the driving force behind anti-christian violence? 121.247.48.118 (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus was not gay. He married Mary of Magdelene and had children, it is said in history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.42.39 (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was the one who started this section. On second thoughts after the recent resolution by the UN against defamation of religions,  I have reversed my opinion.  If Hindus go on the rampage it is those Hindus who must be locked up, similarly if Hindus start denigrating Jesus in NY and Christians go on the rampage, it is those particular Christians that should be locked up and not the Hindus who denigrate Jesus.  Defamation of religions should be everyone's birth right and banning it like the UN has done will lead to oppression to us all.  So Christian brothers continue with the denigration of Hindu gods though Hindus will generally not denigrate Jesus because polytheism is accepting of all faiths.   It is the Anti-Christian violence that should be condemned and not the denigration of Hindu gods and goddesses by Christians. I am definitely against any anti-blasphemy laws.  There is no freedom of expression without the freedom to offend.  121.247.14.61 (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Background
The Box item by Vinay Lal is absurd. He is no authority in such matters; but a motivated campaigner. It is improper to highlight such POV. The Box should be removed. The Page seems to be POV and motivated. --Anyone1947 (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

POV in the Article
There is a lot of slant in the article. A POV check is in order. Purkunna (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this written by some Christian group in India with axes to grind? Purkunna (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove POV Check without discussion. Purkunna (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, before you put a POV tag, outline specifically what you consider to be POV material, and what your justification is. POV tags are not to be thrown onto controversial articles just because you don't agree with what the article says.  AK Radecki Speaketh  20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the BJP's connections to the RSS and frequent coalitions with the fascist Shiv Sena eliminates the credibility of anything Hindu nationalists and their sympathizers have to say about communal violence against Christians in India. I say this as an atheist who was thrilled when Hugo Chavez expelled Pat Robertson's New Tribes from Venezuela. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.248 (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, let's all be cool. Indian brothers and sisters, we are ALL family, regardless of nationality, as long as your heart is pure and soul is free of taint! If there's anti-Christian sentiment, I am sure it was little more than honest misunderstandings, a rocky start to a road of glory and peace! Have a smashing and fantastic day, guys! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Anti christian sentiment move
I oppose this most strenuously, burning a man and his kids to death while asleep in their car is not "Anti christian sentiment" Raping Nuns is not "Anti christian sentiment" Buring little girls faces off is not "Anti christian sentiment" it is hatred and bigotry which results in violence. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fool, I was intending to expand the scope. Assume good faith. Nobody could possibly say that it is not violence to burn or rape somebody. It is after all triggered by hatred and Anti-Christian Sentiment. Your argument falls on its face. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I care not at all for what you intended, and please do not ask me to AGF when at the same time you call me a "fool". Darkness Shines (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Violence is just one of many things that may originate from Anti-Christian sentiment. "Anti-Christian sentiments in India" is a broader topic and includes violence, intolerance. If you don't like the sound of the word "sentiment" then use "Intolerance against Christians in India" does it sound acceptable? Let's not freaking stretch it. I am sincere about my claims. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. The actions carried out by these nationalist bigoted assholes is nothing but pure violence. There is no "anti sentiments" involved. I have some sources for this in userspace, makes for unpleasant reading but I can post them here if you want. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. The point whatever you may term their action was, it was because of a hatred (a sentiment, intolerance) against Christians. Don't assume that I will displeased by reading what you have. I am not asking for deletion of content. If you don't want either then let's go for Persecution of Christians in India. That way I can include more about the discriminations against Christians in India. Why do you take offence to this proposal it escapes me. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus; no move. Both the current and proposed title(s) are descriptive, so usage in reliable sources is not as helpful as it is in cases with topics with clear names. The point that the topic of anti-Christian behavior in India, in general, not just violence, should be covered is well taken, but there is no consensus that this is or should be the article for that. Perhaps a draft of this article that expands the scope accordingly, or a draft of another article that covers the broader scope, is what is needed here? B2C 04:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Christian violence in India → Anti-Christian intolerance in India Persecution of Christians in India or Violence and discrimination against Christians in India (as per 's rationale) – The scope needs to be broadened to integrate the other incidents of intolerance and discrimination which were not necessarily violent in nature. BTW, Nobody could possibly say that it is not violence to burn or rape somebody. But it is after all triggered by and often condoned because of something more ingrained, that is hatred and intolerance. Violence is just one of many things that may originate from religious bigotry and intolerance against Christians. "Intolerance against Christians in India" is a broader topic and would include violence, intolerance. Only focusing on the violence while ignore the underlying manifestations of intolerance would not conducive for the development of the article. P.S. I am all for a move to Persecution of Christians in India (redirects to here) if one doesn't like the word "Intolerance". Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Updated to avoid redundant comments (esp. from Darkness Shines) on the minutiae of the semantics. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose As there has been anti-christian violence in India since the Vellore Mutiny. Also per WP:COMMONNAME, The Politics of Collective Advocacy in India: Tools and Traps p112 "A number of activists and academics have identified the diaspora as a culprit in fueling anti-Muslim and anti-Christian violence in India." Encyclopedia of Modern worldwide extremists and extremist groups p335 "Anti-Christian Violence in India Builds on Fear of Conversions," Everyday Nationalism: Women of the Hindu Right in India p78 "What is the purpose of this anti-Christian mobilization? How do we explain violence by the Hindu majority against the tiny Christian population of India?" Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies and Modern Myths p201 "Ashok Singhal, VHP president, characteristically dismissed the anti-Christian violence, claiming that 'foreign hands', namely Christian leaders from abroad, were behind the violence, their aim being to project India and Hinduism in a bad light" Congressional Record, V. 145, Pt. 20, November 4, 1999 to November P 28873 "Even in Orissa state, site of the worst anti- Christian violence, fewer than 500 conversions occur each year." A Companion to the Anthropology of India p2011 "a caste reservation dispute broke out in Orissa between some Kondh (Kandha) STs and Christian Panas (formerly Hindu SCs) - a dispute that soon turned into more generalized antiChristian violence during 2007-8." And hundreds of thousands more to be found. "Anti-Christian violence in India" Google gives 112,000 results, the proposed name gives 3, two of which are from this RM. Gbooks gives 127 hits for the exact phrase, the proposed title gets zero. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're attacking something I didn't even try to contend. Of course it is violence but I am talking about anti-christian discrimination which are not always violent in nature. Going by your infantile logic "Persecution of Christians in India"/"Christian Persecution in India" get plenty of hits too (132,000 & 134,000 respectively). Your arguments don't prove anything. You're as dogmatic and, frankly, as childishly obdurate against dissenting views as usual. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There needs to be an article here at this title on this topic. It can operate as the more serious subset of an article on broader persecution/intolerance related issues listed at, say, the title the proposer has suggested. As an example, voluntary manslaughter is an article that invariably stems from anger. We have separate articles on these related topics because each one is significant to stand on its own. The article on anti-Christian "sentiment" or whatever should be written, but the article on violence should still stand. Red Slash 21:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do we need two different articles talking about incidents that could be adequately dealt with in one? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support a broadening at the proposed title Violence and discrimination against Christians in India. Red Slash 22:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - This appears to be primarily a sub-article from Religious violence in India. I would think a separate article from Anti-Christian sentiment would be more consistent. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Persecution of Christians in India redirects to this page that means people who want to read more than just violence will also be reading the page, hence it will be more precise to redirect this page to Persecution of Christians in India. That way everybody is satisfied. I am saying this because every form of violence is a form of persecution but not the other way around. In addition to that, I see no reason to narrow it down to only violence while ignoring other pernicious facets of anti-Christian behaviour everywhere in India. Now, I could create a page for Anti-Christian intolerance in India or Persecution of Christians in India but it will almost inevitably be AFDed as a coatrack. Besides, we don't need two separate articles basically repeating the same things. Persecution of Christians in India will obviously include violence and much more than that. Anti-Christian violence in India can redirect to Persecution of Christians in India just as it redirects to this page now. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Support - Persecution of Christians mean a very different thing, the current title would be apt. Unlike the systematic violence against Hindus in Kashmir which can be called as persecution there is no such systematic violenece against christians in whole of India. There might violence incidents and many such incidents were the result of one or the other disputes. -sarvajna (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the statement that the violence is not as ubiquitous against Christians of India as it is against Hindus or Muslims perhaps. But with respect to your interpretation of the word "persecution", I would say the word "persecution" is more appropriate here, however sporadic it may be, persecution means "to subject a person, group etc. to hostility or ill-treatment esp. on grounds of political or religious belief" that's what is going on in Jammu and Kashmir, Orissa. I don't know why but it seems people don't want to post information about the discrimination and the immense intolerance Christians face in certain states of India that are rife with Communal hatred and bigotry. It is demoralizing to witness. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the article the last reported violence against Christians in orissa was in 2008 and I see that only two major incidents are mentioned, Dara Singh and the Kandhamal. Even if we consider the argument that there is perpetual violence against Christians in the state of J&K and Orissa this would not mean that Christians are being persecuted all over India. -sarvajna (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have changed my opinion after the discussion, the title would not give space to other kinds of discrimination that are faced by Christians in parts of India, a more apt title would be "Violence and discimination against Christians in India" or something like that however even the proposed title makes sense. -sarvajna (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As nom, I fully ✅ the name Violence and discrimination against Christians in India or anything that would make way for inclusion of content beyond conventional purview of violence. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose "persecution" proposal. It makes it sound as if the Indian government were officially persecuting Christians (e.g. comparable to what Christians face in Iran or Communist China), while the situation in India is actually non-governmental actors attacking and otherwise harassing Christians.  I understand the nominator's concerns, so I'm not at all convinced that this page is currently at the best title, but the proposal would be worse.  Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This has run for over seven days now and needs to be closed as no consensus for move. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Avoid downplaying - by removing the word "violence" the proposed change would downplay it too much, but I support the proposed alternative, Violence and discrimination against Christians in India. --Stfg (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent incidents
The incidents post 2014 general elections needs to be trimmed. First, attacks on Christian need not be anti-Christian violence. The attacks or alleged attacks on Churches in Delhi and other attacks such as the rape of nun in West Bengal need not be mentioned as they are clearly not anti-Christian violence. can you please comment here? -sarvajna (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The initial reports on the nun case presented the incident as anti-christian violence, without verifying facts. Further, there were hardly any later retractions or regrets by same sources. In such circumstances, both the initial and subsequent neutral reports can be retained.  In principle, a wiki article is  richer if opposite views are expressed in same page, rather than by dropping both neutral  views. -- Cowper2 (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you possibly know "clearly" what went on in the minds of perpetrators? Unless there is some analysis on reliable sources, all acts of violence should stay. We can mention what we know about the incidents, but it is not our place to make speculations, either in support or in opposition of the thesis. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, however A short circuit in a church is "Anti-Christian violence" ? What kind of logic is this? The victim of Delhi rape case was a Hindu, should we consider that as anti-Hindu violence? I don't agree with your logic. -sarvajna (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Attacks on Christians need not be anti-Christian violence"? Does that make sense? This article is supposed to be a record of persecutions of Christians in India, not a page for apologetics justifying the attacks as AdhunikaSarvajna is making it.The Discoverer (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, what he means is that they could be random acts of violence whose victims happened to be Christians. It does not imply an anti-Christian agenda. But I would rather wait for the dust to settle before deciding whether they were anti-Christian incidents or random acts of violence. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes this article is supposed to be a record of persecutions of Christians in India. Kautilya has aptly put it, suppose a hindu guy had a personal rivalry with a christian and he killed the christian guy, you don't call it a Anti-Christian violence although it was a violence against a christian hope you got my point. -sarvajna (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Initially the nun rape incident in West Bengal was reported as a Anti-Christian violence by right wing activist. Hence, it will be appropriate to retain the original entry and present the subsequent findings clearing the misapprehensions. Otherwise, it will be a travesty of justice to the wrongly accused community. Do you get the logic? -- Cowper2 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who accused any "community". It is the organisations that are accused and for good reason too because it is their malicious propaganda that generates all this violence. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know which right wing activists you are speaking about, it was initially seen as a Anti-Christian Violence, now we have details and it looks something else. We are not here to provide justice, it makes no sense to retain that content just because wrong people were accused previously. -sarvajna (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with the construct of the discussion. The nun rape case, Delhi drunken misdemeanor case and the Navi Mumbai case and many more have been woven together into a single narrative of violence against Christians. Notable public personalities like Julio Rebeiro have spoken about an atmosphere of insecurity. In such a foul environment, it is important to scientifically deconstruct each report of alleged anti Christian episode.  Deconstructing the episodes and reporting the findings will clear the air of misconceived accusations.  Conversely, if any of the reported incidents have a factual basis, it is important to report the subsequent findings.  Either way, it is important to document the episodes, accusations and document the finding scientifically. This is my view, a slightly long answer.  --  Cowper2 (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ( Please add your comments at the bottom of the section, and put your signature at the end of the comment. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC))
 * That is a pretty sophisticated-sounding argument. But you are forgetting the fact that it is not Wikipedia's job to do such "scientific deconstruction." We merely report what the reliable sources say. Trying to argue with them here constitutes original research. (Privately, I should point out that when Hindutva terror incidents happened, both the Sangh Parivar and the police kept claiming for years and years that the Muslims were bombing themselves! So, there are good reason for our sources to ignore all such pronouncements.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * your argument might make sense but this is hardly the venue, as Kautilya pointed out it is not the job of wikipedia to do the deconstruction that you are speaking about. What you want to add can also be termed as "undue" .-sarvajna (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to add. Neither do I carry a political viewpoint. Go with the experts on Wiki Conventions, Rules and Ethics. Cheers -- Cowper2 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Some editors around here suffer from the misconception that their private musings about what is or isn't "anti-X violence" have any relevancefor the encyclopedia. They do not. What matters is sources. If sources describe an incident as an instance of anti-X violence, as violence motivated by anti-X sentiment or as taking place in a context of anti-xism, then that is a reason to exclude it. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

How is this statement NPOV?
I am new to Wikipedia so I request experienced users to help me understand how the following statement appearing in the article can be treated as NPOV? "the BJP was found directly responsible for allowing bloodshed to spread." -- Abhi
 * (Please remember to sign your comments with ~ at the end.)
 * What is non-neutral about the statement? If it is an accurate reflection of the sources (which I haven't yet checked), then it should be fine. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is indeed not supported by sources, apparently an old POV-pusher at work . I will reword it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anti-Christian violence in India. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511041409/http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Jan06/Art_Jan06_07.html to http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Jan06/Art_Jan06_07.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Christian violence in India. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716073428/http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/news.php?id=94349 to http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/news.php?id=94349
 * Added tag to http://tehelka.com/story_main37.asp?filename=Ne190108next_stop.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221170851/http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main40.asp?filename=Ne130908HindutvasViolentHistory.asp to http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main40.asp?filename=Ne130908HindutvasViolentHistory.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Uttar Pradesh
This section contains a list where many incidents are covered,almost all of them depend upon two references which may not be neutral at all. Global Christians and Evangelical Fellowship of India cannot be considered on Wikipedia since they belong to the particular group in question. I am going to shorten or delete some content unless someone suggests a reliable and neutral source. ---zeeyanwiki discutez 21:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Open Doors
Open Doors is obviously neither credible nor neutral. By their metric, a number of overtly Christian nations are among the worst "persecutors" of the Christian faith. Jerimee (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu, Anti-India, Hateful and violent tone, Lopsided
Article fails to mention the provocation in most cases. It also does not show the political motivation for minority appeasement and popular resentment against deceptive, criminal missionary religious conversion activities. Article primarily blames Hindus for the violence against Christians. If that was true in a country of about 900 million Hindus. Christians would not have survived a day. It maligns Hindus and social non-religious organizations like RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.189.212 (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree; I am considering editing this article to lower its pro-Christian bias. Jamutaq (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No it is not, both of you are advocating POV pushing to adovcate your own views rather than what can be backed up by reliable sources. In particular the IP user has been warned multiple times on his/her talk page about adding biased information to this and other articles. If you feel so strongly about a subject find reliable sources (not blogs or posts) to fix what you think is wrong, don't just complain and cry that the article doesn't reflect your views. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverting all my edits to a two months old version
Most of my edits in the page were reverted to a version from February 21, by an user citing it as WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. The Overview section in the present version has incidents from 9 states of the country while the country has a total of 28 states. In the last version before the revert, i had expanded the overview section and added several incidents for a few more states. I also moved the mixed up content at the top of the overview section to their respective states. In short, i just expanded the article by adding notable incidents from other states. The incidents that i added were only summaries.

This was a report from BBC:

A 2016 news-report from The Gaurdian:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not everything published in the news, comes here. But the recent revert removed a huge amount of content including some very notable incidents that i added here for the past few months. The user who did the revert also did the same to other pages that i had created or expanded like the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal and 2008 Kandhamal violence citing various reasons. If the user believed some of the content was non-notable, he should have removed those or started a discussion here rather than completely reverting nearly all of my edits. I believe this is a very biased removal. - SUN EYE 1  12:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The studies about persecution are well-updated on the article and the article is still in poor condition as it is depending on unreliable sources such as ucanews.com, worldea.org, and others. Fact that your addition brought more unreliable sources (sabrang, sputnik, mattersindia, nationalherald, etc.) and WP:NOTNEWS items - is why your edits were unhelpful for the article. You can read Violence against Muslims in India and see how that article only includes totally notable items, having their own pages. I know we won't reach to that level for this article but at least we can avoid degradation of the present state of the article. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed a few links from ucanews.com before it got reverted to the present condition. I didn't know sputnik and NationalHerald were un-reliable and i'am willing to remove all those "un-reliable" sources and replace it with reliable ones. If you see the after and before revert versions, you will see that i had mostly added more sections of "states". How is reverting all my additions for a countable few un-reliable references justifiable. You could have pointed those out or removed the unreliable sources. Plus that user was reverting all the edits in the articles i had expanded. -  SUN EYE 1  15:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging and, could you please share your view on this issue since you are aware of it from the ANI. -  SUN EYE 1  15:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The trouble with the article at the moment is that a lot of it is a list. As such it already is a somewhat incoherent collection of incidents, and any argument to exclude other incidents on that basis is rather meaningless. Ideally, the entire thing needs to be rewritten with attention to what the sources say about the phenomenon, and the list, presumably, split into a proper list article. Even if we don't do that,, a wholesale revert was inappropriate here. I find it very hard to believe that every incident already in the article is major and notable, and every incident that was recently added was not. You, and anyone who objects to the inclusion of additional incidents, needs to look at those incidents on a case-by-case basis. As an aside, an article needs to be built on reliable sources, but that does not mean only scholarly sources. Scholarly sources are preferable, obviously, but where they are low on detail, it is acceptable to flesh out an article based on high-quality media sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a high-level page that should contain high-level content. Excessive addition of incidents is counter-productive., I would encourage you to think harder about what belongs here and what should be relegated to subpages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thank you for sharing your view. I too agree with your statement that this article has become into an excessive collection of incidents. The present version is also the same as the previous version regarding the collection of incidents. And if reverted, i would trim off the excessive incidents and add only the most notable incidents like the 2008 Kandhamal violence and try to make it more like the Violence against Muslims in India article since i have also expanded the 'Background' and the 'Overview' section. The most of the other incidents can be left out or be made into subpages if necessary - SUN EYE 1  11:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , How about this version i have created in my user space. Removed most of the incidents and kept the most notable ones. - SUN EYE 1  15:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No, that version flows in the same vein, perhaps even worse. Let us start with some basics. Name three states in India where violence against Christians is the most problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * According to this 2019 report from Persecution relief, Uttar pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka faces the most problems. This 2014 church report from Alliance Defending Freedom, ranks UP, TN and Chattisgargh at the top three. Both of these reports are based on the number of complaints about any attacks recieved to their organization. There was huge violence in gujarat during the late 1990's at the time of BJP. There were also very notable incidents from Odisha during 2007-2008. This same report also tells "In most states, there has been a direct link between BJP gaining power in a state and the rise of violence against Christians there." so it changes at times. But the severity of the Violence is mostly limited to the Northern states and i would place Uttar Pradesh, Odisha and Gujarat as the "top three" by severity and by the number of notable incidents. Kartataka and Tamil Nadu also experienced wide-spread violence during 2008.  SUN EYE 1  13:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Odisha and Gujarat are indeed best known. I don't believe Uttar Pradesh is anywhere close, but I could be wrong. So, let us say that those three states should be given dedicated sections and other states summarised. For each, you want well-rounded coverage talking about when the violence began and why, what tensions exist, what the big incidents were, and how the government handled them etc. No part of Wikipedia should be a "facts dump". We need a narrative that provides insight. Did you look at the sources mentioned in the Further reading section? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your guidance. Yes, i saw the the one by "Bauman, Chad M." and it gives a better view. I think, i could rewrite the article in my user-space and we could go further from there. - SUN EYE 1  18:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

New york Times article
can be included. Venkat TL (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Causes and effects section
With sentences like "Among upper-caste Hindu nationalists, this feeling of anxiety is especially intense because they themselves only comprise a very tiny minority. It is only in combination with the larger population of middle castes, Adivasis and Dalits that the upper-caste nationalists can pretend to represent a majority.", the section is not written in an impartial tone per WP:NPOV. I request editors knowledgeable regarding this topic to copyedit this section to make it more balanced and unbiased. Chronikhiles (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

manipur?
@Hu741f4, you added section about Manipur 2023 here. Out of the 3, 2 sources mention Christian only once and the other source is just churches demanding normalcy. None of the sources state this is religious violence. This cant sit in the article. Have removed it. Dont re-add it before discussing. >>> Extorc . talk  16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It was an ethnic conflict involving Christian majority tribe and destruction of Churches. My edit doesn't refer to it as a religious violence. This information is sourced, the sources are reliable and it doesn't assert anything that is not supported by the cited source. If you think that it goes against Wikipedia policy then please state that Hu741f4 (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "My edit doesn't refer to it as a religious violence" Any instances of violence added to this page suggests that its "religiously motivated violence". Any type of violence that isnt so is not relevant. Just because the information is sourced doesn't guarantee its inclusion in the article. >>> Extorc . talk  17:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Any type of violence that isnt so is not relevant
 * The violence include persecution of predominantly Christian tribe and burning of Churches so how is this not relevant. Hu741f4 (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not relevant because the reliable sources don't find the religious markers relevant. Hence this is not a religiously motivated instance of violence. The most reliable sources do not find the religious markers deserving more than a single mention like HT, Guardian and IndiaToday Attacks on churches doesn't make it religiously motivated. The burden of demonstrating that is on you. >>> Extorc . talk  17:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am putting this dispute for third opinion. Lets see what other editors have to say. I'll cite my sources Hu741f4 (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. >>> Extorc . talk  17:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your concern : This content is irrelevant because 2023 Manipur violence is ethnic violence and not a religious violence
 * My response: 2023: Manipur violence is ethnic violence that contains elements of religiously motivated violent incidents against Christians. Multiple sources have reported on the religious nature of this violence, which includes the burning of churches, which is undoubtedly relevant to this article. Moreover, you must not forget that the violence is between a Christian minority tribe (Kuki-Zomi) and a predominantly Hindu Metei tribe. Here are the sources pertaining to religious elements of the violence:
 * 1)
 * https://m.timesofindia.com/city/mumbai/manipur-christians-caught-in-violence-sponsored-by-state/articleshow/100172198.cms
 * 2)
 * https://www.telegraphindia.com/north-east/pastor-cries-for-help-as-church-and-theological-college-gets-burnt-down-in-manipur/cid/1935099
 * 3)
 * https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/christian-groups-alarmed-by-church-attacks-in-manipur-urge-centre-to-start-talks/article66817700.ece
 * 4)
 * https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/church-bodies-call-for-calm-in-manipur-say-christians-being-targeted-8594193
 * 5)
 * Release International described it as "Anti-Christian violence" https://releaseinternational.org/india-anti-christian-violence-erupts-while-supreme-court-claims-no-persecution/ Hu741f4 (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Like-minded secular activists held a press conference" "mostly Hindu Meitei majority...Christian Kukis" "Leading Indian Christian organisations" "Christian organisations across the country" And the last is a christian ministry These are quotes of organisation and no WP:RS is putting them as their voice. You fail to show me one high quality WP:RS which puts this event as a religious violence incident while I can show you dozens which do not find the religious markers deserving of more than one if not any mention at all. These sources include The Guardian, IndiaToday, BBC, NYT, TheHindu, IndianExpress. I can go on. The proposition that this event is a piece of "religiously motivated violence" is complete WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and no WP:RS supports that. >>> Extorc . talk  21:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Extorc : In your explanation it is nowhere clear it is not religiously motivated.
 * You mean attacks on any religious institution are not religiously motivated?? What kind of logic is that?
 * Hence, I completely agree with @Hu741f4's explanation.
 * Portwoman (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is pretty clear in my message, but only if you read it. Yes, its not religiously motivated because all sources indicate so. I encourage you to read WP:RS. >>> Extorc . talk  06:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Portwoman >>> Extorc . talk  06:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "only if you read it."? No personalised comments..really didn't expect this from you.
 * You want to be part of a iscussion, please be WP:CIVIL
 * @Extorc please read WP:PERSONAL. Portwoman (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Portwoman Nothing here is a personal attack. Kindly read the policy before citing it to me. Also closely read WP:WIAPA >>> Extorc . talk  09:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: I tend to agree with Extorc here. Of the sources Hu741f4 provides, the first is considered unreliable by RSP, the second, third, and fourth are essentially interviews of Christian organizations or people where the media does not take a side themselves, and the fifth is just a statement by a Christian organization (that, mind you, literally has "...of persecuted Christians" on their home page). If you were to look at 2023 Manipur violence, you would find sources that attribute the clash to ethnic and tribal conflict, and little mention of Christianity besides the fact that one of the tribes is predominantly Christian. Perhaps it could be said that Christianity is also involved solely on the basis of the claims by Christians, but it is not the main cause, and I don't think it is involved enough to justify inclusion on this page. Snowmanonahoe (talk &middot; contribs &middot; typos) 18:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am in agreement with Extorc and Snowmanonahoe. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)