Talk:Christianity in India/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Recent edits

There have been some recent large-scale edits to the article by 66.188.184.221, who also seems to be 24.197.220.89. Another editor has objected to these edits. I have reverted the edits (at least temporarily), which look like this (diff here). Should these edits be reinstated? -- Radagast3

• • The edits are in no way controversial. They have only added to the quality of the article. Improving an article - is that bad? All the information that has been added has been sourced to reliable sources. I have added several interesting and valuable information such as pioneering protestant missions in South India. As for Deepak's allegation that I have copied: I am not sure what he is talking about. I have used a couple of pictures from the Mangalorean Catholics article. Isn't it legal to use pictures already posted on wikipedia. I have worked hard to improve this article. Please do not be prejudiced because I am an IP address editor. Consider how much better the article looks and feels after the edits. Thank you.--24.197.220.89 (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was concerned at the table you added to the demographics section, which didn't seem to quite match what was in the cited reference. There was also a question as to whether you are, in fact, the same person as 66.188.184.221, who added the material. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was me as well. I might have got a few figures wrong. Feel free to edit it. I will also have a look at it as well. As for now, let me go ahead and reinstate the changes and let you guys edit or remove what seems objectionable.--24.197.220.89 (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to give User:Deepak D'Souza a chance to explain his/her objections. And if you are 66.188.184.221, you appear to currently be blocked from editing; you should probably appeal that first (see User talk:66.188.184.221), and then get back to this article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Deepak D'Souza has been active but not replied. I do not see why anyone would object to a constructive edit that improves an article. I travel and therefore use different IP addresses. I do not need to address that issue anymore. I will reinstate the changes since no one has raised any objections. Please discuss here which part of the changes should be modified or removed and we will do so. Please do not deprive this article of the quality it deserves. Thank you.--24.197.220.89 (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, my only issue was with some inaccuracies in the table. However, in an article which raises as much controversy as this, it might be best to make changes in stages, rather than in one massive edit that changes multiple sections. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly if it is a blocked editor, they are not justified in making edits as anons simply because they can. It is hignly unlikely that a newbie editor picks up the skill tomake such enormous and perfect changes in a single edit so this is clearly sockpuppetry. Besides the edits had a few controversial elements. I am a bit busy and will look into it over the weekend. I definetly dont mind picking up the good changes but if it is a blocked editor they should appeal and only then proceed. --Deepak D'Souza (talk)

70 percent figure dubios

I am replacing the 'around 70%' in the demographics section with "significant percentages" in order to improve the accuracy of the article. The internet is full of estimates of the percentages of dalits among Christians. Percentages such as 50, 60, 70, 90 are just as widely reported as the 70% figure. None seem to agree and there is no official number available. An official estimate will be available come Jan 2010 when the Census of India will be published. Also this is the first time data on caste has been collected. Therefore until then this article need to adhere to the standards of accuracy and reliability. In favour of my argument I am posting several different percentage numbers that I have come across.

50% figure: 1) National council of churches in US, apparently very reliable source: http://www.ncccusa.org/news/99news27.html 2) another considerable reliable source: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=6Pg0LsLSyFcC&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=%2250+percent+of+christians+in+india%22&source=bl&ots=Cn3xdocg1-&sig=U5xCAi1W7yZ_8pFpt2B0ifEC5ig&hl=en&ei=GvhlTPDxFNOLnQfEt4HvCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%2250%20percent%20of%20christians%20in%20india%22&f=false

60% figure:several sources which include one from the vatican: 1) http://www.ucanews.com/2010/04/06/religion-a-concern-as-national-census-starts/ 2) http://www.mail-archive.com/goanet@goanet.org/msg39422.html 2) http://www.dailyestimate.com/article.asp?id=16715 3) http://www.nagalim.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11&Itemid=5 4) http://www.radiovaticana.org/por/Articolo.asp?c=370074 5) http://www.cathnewsindia.com/2009/11/03/church-revives-dalit-right-demands/ 6) http://www.paklinks.com/gs/religion-and-scripture/214230-christianity-with-a-hindu-culture.html 7) http://www11.charter.net/search?qo=www.wnscc.org%2Fucanjuly12.html&rn=fr1kSpKTFxXVgqV

70% figure: several references are already mentioned in the article which propose a 70% figure

80% and 90% figures from apparently reliable sources: 1)http://www.agts.edu/dmin/project/sample_prospectus.pdf 2)http://www.missionfrontiers.org/pdf/1987/03/m874.htm 3)http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/bc.cgi?international/011120moses

So given these conflicting percentages, it is best to replace the '70% figure' with 'significant percentages" which is much closer to the truth. If anyone has any objections, please cite here.--BunyanTree (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think "about 70%" best reflects the sources cited in the article, and is also the midpoint of the 50-90% range you quote. I would encourage you to add sources to the article, but I consider the "significant percentages" phrase very weak. Those people citing percentages around 70% are claiming that a majority of Indian Christians are Dalit: the "significant percentages" phrase completely loses that implication. If you add all those sources, the phrase "between 50% and 90%" may be appropriate. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would also point out that even the Census may not resolve the issue, in that "Dalit" does not have quite the same meaning as SC. Many Dalit Christians have SC origins, but do not themselves have SC status. I'm not sure how the census would have counted John Mulagada, for example. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• I do not think 'significant percentages' is weak phrasing. In fact with various percentages from 9 (official figure) to 90 being 'promulgated', I think the phrase 'significant percentages' is closest to reality. The word significant not only implies a number of considerable value but also accords certain importance to the number itself. We therefore cannot create our own perfect percentage/percentages from those available.

• Based on your own observation that there are Christians that have SC origins but do not have SC status, I would like to ask a question that has been circumvented every time it has been raised: On what justification do you state that 70% of Indian Christians are Dalit Christian when the population figure stated at the beginning of the article (i.e. 2.4% or the 24 million Indian Christians) does not include Dalits who have SC status and therefore these Dalits are not considered/recognised as Indian Christian. If you were to number all the 'Hindu' Dalits that secretly profess Christianity as Indian Christian, the population of Indian Christians would not remain at 2.4%. I’m sure everybody agrees to that. This is the same argument which is proposed by pro-affirmation activists who wish to extend reservation benefits to Dalit converts to Christianity.

• As to your question about John Mulagadda, he is an Indian Christian with Dalit heritage but he himself is no longer Dalit or SC as per the constitution of India. As of now, Christians with Dalit heritage exist but the words Christian and Dalit itself have been made mutually exclusive of each other by the discriminatory Schedule Caste order of the Indian Constitution. Another analogous question that might help understand the issue better: Is an Indian-American Indian or American? He/She is American with Indian heritage. He/She cannot be both since the government of India does not provide for dual citizenship. Therefore I ask you again what justification do you offer for not being able to count Dalits who secretly profess Christianity as Indian Christians and yet stating that 70% of Indian Christians are Dalit.

• There have been several scenarios of similar circumstances in history. If all the crypto-Catholics during the reformation in England were counted as Catholic, England would have remained a predominantly Catholic nation throughout the reigns of Henry VIII and his successors Edward and Elizabeth. If crytpo-Christians were numbered among the ranks of Christians before Constantine, the Roman Empire would have long before been a predominantly Christian nation. As a standard in history, crypto believers of any faith were never counted as members of that particular faith. They always had to choose or pay a price for openly professing their faith. In olden days it was martyrdom, in the current scenario it is relinquishing reservation benefits. To be called a Christian in India, one has to relinquish his Dalit or SC status. There are umpteen numbers of Christians with Dalit Heritage who have done that (like Bishop John Mulagadda) and they are numbered amongst the 24 million Indian Christians. The issue of Dalit Christianity affects Christianity in India but it is not an integral part of Christianity in India as of yet. This explains the separate article for the issue.

• While I do appreciate your tenacity in addressing the cause of Dalit Christians, I ask you not to be affected by your sympathies when stating facts in an article of this importance. I myself am an advocate of affirmative action but until it has been achieved only Dalits who have the spirit to choose being Christian over reservation benefits alone can be counted among the ranks of Indian Christians. If you insist on counting Christian outside of official 24 million population in favour of your cause, you are clearly mistaken. So let us be reasonable and state the facts.--BunyanTree (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for that lengthy and passionate response. I suspect, though, that you may have some of my edits confused with those of another, much more tenacious, editor.
• The point of the 70% claim is that it is a claim for a majority. The phrase "significant percentage" loses that claim, thus making other parts of the article confusing. The fact that this number is widely reported is sourced and notable (whether or not the number is an accurate reflection of reality). The official figures, which differ, are also sourced and notable.
• The term SC is a legally defined term, as you point out, but Dalit is not -- or at least the article on the subject calls it a "self-designation." The terms are thus not equivalent, so that John Mulagada can be widely referred to as "Dalit," even though I'm guessing he did not have SC status. My personal guess as to the disparity between the 70% figure and the official figures results from the 70% including non-SC Christians of Dalit background, like John Mulagada. That's only a guess, and so I haven't added that to the article. However, the guess is confirmed by the fact that the Vatican seems to think that about 60-70% of Indian Catholics are Dalit, in the broad sense of the term. I do not think that the disparity results from counting Christians outside of the official 24 million.
• Given all these issues, it seems to me necessary for the article (1) to restrict itself to reliable sources (there are, in my view, still too many unreliable sources included); (2) to be precise about terminology; and (3) not to over-simplify.
• I thought the article had reached a reasonable compromise solution with "about 70% is widely reported ... but the official figures are ..." but more recent edits have blurred that structure, and added poorly sourced "explanations" of the difference. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My question has not been answered for the second time and how can you so firmly state "I do not think that the disparity results from counting Christians outside of the official 24 million."

This long-drawn conflict clearly appears to be going on forever and I really wish to resolve this matter. The 2010 census might help clear the matter. However, as a temporary compromise I think the '70% figure' should be replaced by a '50 to 70% figure' since the percentages of 50 and 60 have been cited just as frequently as the 70% figure on the internet and certainly from more reliable sources (the Vatican for instance). The 80% and 90% are not only much less reported (probably a couple of times) and seem very far fetched even to simple reasoning. Therefore I believe a 50 to 70% figure should be included at least for now. --BunyanTree (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can firmly state my personal opinion because it is indeed my current best-guess personal opinion; I haven't added my personal opinion to the article because I know it lacks solid evidence (although obviously I have reasons, such as the Vatican figures). However, the fact that I have a current best-guess personal opinion doesn't mean I rule out other possibilities (and I have left untouched in the article several statements that personally I have doubts about). Again, you seem to have me confused with someone else who has different, and stronger, opinions.
• I would support a course of action where you (1) remove unreliable blog-type references; (2) add some of the more reliable references you have found (books, journals, newspapers, reliable Internet sites); (3) change the wording to "Although x of Indian Christians are widely reported to be Dalit Christians,[references]..."; and (4) use a value of x that summarises the actual references used. For example, retaining the current 70% sources, and adding reliable 50% sources would make x="about 50% to 70%" or x="a majority" appropriate. All those steps line up with Wikipedia policy. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed an unreliable reference [1] from the article which did not support the statement it was attached to (see WP:V). -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jessoclarence, 16 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In "Jesus in India Theories", please add that, In contrast to the second theory, Biblical accounts clearly suggest that Jesus dwelt in Nazareth, in Galilee. This is plainly inferred from the fact that other people in his city recognized him, and were offended that he should be teaching them, and also wondered from where he got wisdom. Had they been aware of Jesus' travels they would have no cause for surprise. Sources : Bible Matthew 13:54-55, Mark 6:2-3, Luke 4:16-23 Jessoclarence (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This may be true, but the WP:V policy states that Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not just truth. We would need a book reference that discussed these theories and debunked them. The article could then summarise the point the book was making, with a citation. Do you have a suitable book reference? -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Was not those Biblical books sources? Well here is one book - Douglas Groothuis, Searching for the Real Jesus In An Age of Controversy" (Minneapolis: Harvest House, 1996), 120. Is any other clarification needed?--Jessoclarence (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What does p 120 of that book say? -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Paxfromindy, 20 April 2011

Famous Indian Christians: http://notableindianchristians.webs.com/

Paxfromindy (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Famous Indian Christians

Notable Indian Christians in various fields :

http://notableindianchristians.webs.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxfromindy (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism in edits [| here] by Gaitherbill and user SpacemanSpiff [| here]

Hi, User:Gaitherbill, stop modifying article. The mentioned statements are well sourced...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

Please discuss the issue here when the content is sourced...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your sourcing is substandard consists of entirely POV blogs and the like. And stop calling other's edits as vandalism, you are continuously inserting your POV into multiple articles. —SpacemanSpiff 07:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of wasting time arguing here, get it to the noticeboard and let admins decide. The sourced content is not "POV blogs and the like" at all...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know which noticeboard to take this matter to.

Which if the following source is an issue?

1. http://voi.org/books/hhce/Ch21.htm

2. http://apostlethomasindia.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/the_myth_of_saint_thomas_and_the_mylapor.pdf

3. http://voi.org/books/ca/index.htm

4. http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/christian-missionaries-take-aim-at-india-deceptive-bible-other-questionable-tactics

5. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hhce/

6. http://www.bedegriffiths.com/shantivanam/images-of-shantivanam/

7. http://www.upanishad.org/en/summary.htm

8. http://www.upanishad.org/en/summary.htm

9. http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/vedic_experience/VEIndex.html

10. http://www.bedegriffiths.com/sangha/sangha_2009_spring.pdf

11. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hhce/Ch19.htm

I would like to point out that what I mentioned here is about facts. In no way it casts anything on Christianity as it is(Though perhaps I would be accused of something even for this)...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 08:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

VOI is not a reliable source, it's a right wing POV outlet, the rest are simply similar, unreliable primary source opinion pieces. Wikipedia is not the place to promote these pieces, for that you should open your own blog, not write here.—SpacemanSpiff 08:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding that VOI is a right wing POV outlet is understandable, and let me know if this standard is applied across Wikipedia. I would like to point out that these resources are about people in India, not about what right wing PVO outlets in Europe or USA or anywhere else would say to Hindus or others doing what in may be doing in Europe or USA or anywhere else. It is apparent that what Hindus may say against these (which are again linked here and maintained by Christians) and similar activities are considered as right wing POV. It seems Wikipedia should be more neutral, and accept that just as similar to what right wing sources in Europe/USA/somewhere else has rights to express themselves and mentioned in Wikipedia just as much. As it is, this content is not questioning Christianity but mentions facts in India.

Other sources like 6. http://www.bedegriffiths.com/shantivanam/images-of-shantivanam/, 7. http://www.upanishad.org/en/summary.htm 9. http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/vedic_experience/VEIndex.html 10. http://www.bedegriffiths.com/sangha/sangha_2009_spring.pdf are maintained by Christians in India, not Hindu right wing...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 08:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

12 http://www.upanishad.org/en/chidananda.htm 13. http://www.upanishad.org/vandana/vandana_mataji.htm 14. http://www.upanishad.org/ishpriya/biography.htm are all maintained by Chriatians though "Upanishada" are Hindu scriptures...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 09:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear, I think, that the upanishad site is not a reliable source. There is no statement of editorial oversight anywhere, and pages like this one aren't in intelligible English. Before I get misread here, I am not saying that sources ought to be in English--but such poor language suggests poor editorial practices. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And what is a page like this supposed to source reliable? That page is nothing but a photo gallery, and the rest of the site can at the most function to provide some biographical information on Bede Griffiths, but nothing historical or contentious. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bedegriffiths.com/shantivanam/images-of-shantivanam/ please see the pictures in detail, for example the first picture has Hindu symbol "aum" at the center of cross, the architecture or temples, that have figures for certain reasons of religious beliefs in Gods(some as irrational too to signify that God inside is more than rationality etc.), is changed to icons of Jesus Christ and so on. It is indeed contentious and subversive of confuses practices(as per me). How and where is not done by me, but what is the need to make something look common in the when it is not so is intriguing. As suggested here, I am not going to edit considering these sources..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 21:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Right--I think. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Leaf manuscripts

The statement that, “leaf manuscripts from the 15th or 16th century, .. .. .. are thought to be the work of early missionaries, or of the Syrian Malabar church]],” is an erroneous belief.

It was Robert de Nobili (1577 – 1656) a Jesuit Missionary from Italy, who tried to convert Brhamins in Madurai in Tamil Nadu. He was there in jail (1639-1641) and he had written some books. Probably it was during his time this manuscrpt was written. This has nothing to do with the Syrian Malabar who were in Malabar and not in Tamilnadu. Also their language was Malayalam and not Tamil during the period mentioned. For more details please refer (1) Donald F Lach. Asia in the Making of Europe. The University of Chicago Press,1965. Vol. II, Page pp 462. (2) Edwards, Michael. East West Passage. Taplinger Publishing co. New York. 1971. p. 174. More details are in L. Guzman's Historia de las missiones. Vol I, pp. 1-273. So the reference to Syrian Malabar church in the caption is deleted and the file is moved to the section The arrival of Catholicism to which this belongs.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I really don't see any significance for the picture, so I'm removing it because it has now been to moved to the Protestant missions section. --Gaitherbill (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Montage

Please add the picture and caption of Gheevarghese Mar Gregorios of Parumala, he was the very first canonized Saint in all of India He is venerated as a Saint by around 3 million people belonging to both the Malankara Jacobite and Malankara Orthodox Church. ~~ June 2011 ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.146.149 (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's get a concensus as I mentioned earlier in my edits that the present moontage has been so framed such that all ethnicities, states, denominations, and both genders are represented equitably. Also wanted to point out that St. Alphonsa is venereated by 11 million catholics in India but unfortunately her picture is not on the montage either. Cheers--Gaitherbill (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:IndianChristiansMontage.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:IndianChristiansMontage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 30 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Montage

I see John Abraham and Lara Dutta in the montage. The source here ([2]) says he is a Parsi (may be in the ethnical sense of the word). Unless, confirmed with sources about their religious affiliation, their faces must be removed from the montage. There are many other Indians whose Christian affiliation can be easily confirmed. Arjun^codename024 23:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If John Abrham did not want to identify himself as a Christian, I'm sure he would have changed his name or even taken up a screen name. His father is a Syrian Christian and he will remain a Christian unless he expressly states otherwise. Just a single "entertainment" website referring to him as a parsi (even in the ethnic sense that you were reffering to) does not suffice the removal of his picture from the montage. Please put forth reliable sources of John's own affirmation of his faith. Lara Dutta is also a Christian as reaffirmed by her recent Christian wedding [[3]]. As per Indian Christian wedding act, both participants are required to be Christian in order for a Christian marriage to be performed. --Gaitherbill (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether you think he should have changed his name or not does not matter. By that logic, Dilip Kumar and Meena Kumari would not be Muslims. A man's religious affiliation can be known only from his/her affirmation as such. There is a source that tells John is a parsi, and there is no source presented that says he is a Christian. Well, i rest my case of Dutta as the source above says she is a Christian.Arjun^codename024 05:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Another addition: Ethinicity is bequeathed paternally rather than maternally. So even in the ethnic sense, John is a Syrian Nasrani rather than a Parsi.--Gaitherbill (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• There are a few problems with the montage as is -- copyright issues, quite a few of the source images are likely to be deleted as copyvios (one done, one in the process and a couple more); the next problem is that whether one has a Christian name or not, we need confirmation through reliable sources that they consider themselves as such (this is not a problem unique to this montage though). Finally, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Coramandel23. —SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• We feel greater importance must be given to textual content rather than images. To this effect, we recommend that images of actors be removed. There are certainly a good number of Christian actors in India who are more popular than 'Amala Paul' or 'Freida Pinto'. It would have been more sensible to include a photograph of Mother Teresa. However, this is an issue that warrants discussion. - Tootleby (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ishwar Sharan

The following text (minus the quote tag) has been in the article for some months. Today it has been under attack repeatedly, despite redrafting for neutrality, and is currently deleted from the article, so it is time to discuss the matter. The sources show that the facts reported are correct - a book by Sharan does exist; it does dispute the traditional claims; and the matter was reported at least in the Daily Pioneer. I do not have any view personally on whether Sharan was correct, and nor should Wikipedia, but should take a neutral point of view - that here are the facts as reported. Unexplained reversions by IP editors do not constitute rational discussion. Therefore, what are other editors' opinions? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

However, The Pioneer reports that author Ishwar Sharan disputes the traditional claims in his book The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple.

IMO, sounds like a good compromise, yet might not be worthy of an encyclopedia. --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Reportage in one, relatively minor newspaper does not make the grade (multiple, independent sources etc), and especially when the reporter appears to be non-notable and a probable sympathiser anyway. I've tried to find alternate reports without success. However, something might turn up at an AfD that I've started, in which case this could be reviewed. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Come now, multiple sources for every fact? WP:V just requires "anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material" - not lots of them. The standard is of course higher for an entire article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It is being challenged, and not just in this article, therefore multiple sources are desirable. More, as I said on your talk page a few hours ago, The Pioneer is not exactly known for its fact-checking, as Jimbo found out just before Christmas. The list of reliable Indian news print sources is not long. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, although the IPs are not saying why, my suspicion is that the challenge is based on WP:FRINGE, not on whether the statement is correct in itself. - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the question for THIS article is, are there non-fringe sources for the view that aspects of the St Thomas claim are wrong? It seems to me (newbie on this topic) that there are North Indian, South Indian, Both, and Neither theories; and there are 1st-Century (including St Thomas the Apostle) theories as well as 2nd-or-3rd Century ones. The evidence for Christianity in India by the 3rd Century seems overwhelming (Eusebius, Ambrose, etc); the evidence for earlier connections much less so. Hard to prove a negative, but no reason the question should be taboo. Anyone like to help out? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There is Nagaswamy, who disputes where things happened & (depending what day of the week he said something, & whether or not the sun was shining etc) sometimes seems to dispute that anything happened at all. He was in his day a respected academic but his non-peer reviewed post-retirement project - the Tamil Arts Academy - is pretty dodgy & has been viewed as needing a fair pinch of salt for much of what it says. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly doubts on Thomas

I have a few sources that may be of interest, and the Garbe text is available online in full, but it is German. I recently added the Neill and Frykenburg to the article for related issues. Garbe, Richard, Indien und das Christentum (Tuebingen: Verlag Mohr, 1916), p. 145:

"Die völlige Unglaubwürdigkeit der Thomas-Legende mußte festgestellt werden, damit wir in wissenschaftlicher Weise an die Frage herantreten können, seit wann die sogenannten Thomas-Christen in den südindischen Küstenländern ansässig und woher sie gekommen sind."

"The complete unbelievability of the Thomas Legend has been established, so that we of a scientific mind can treat of the question, since when have the so-called Thomas-Christians been resident in Southern Indian coastal lands and whence have they come? [My humble translation.]"

ibid., p.141. : "In Wirklichkeit ist die ganze Thomas-Legende ebenso erdichtet..."; "In reality the entire Thomas Legend is also fictional... [My humble translation]".

Neill, Stephen, A History of Christianity in India (Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 49:

"For the first three centuries of the Christian Era we have nothing nothing that could be called clear historical evidence [that St. Thomas visited India]...

"It is possible that in this dark period the apostle Thomas came to India and that the foundation of the Indian church goes back to him; we can only regret the absence of any clear evidence to support this view."

Frykenberg, Robert Eric, Christianity in India: From Beginnings to the Present (Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 114:

"...the historicity of apostolic origins [of Christianity in India] rests upon conjectural conjectural or uncertain evidence. Yet, large measures of circumstantial and corroborative evidences are such that the plausibility, if not possibility, of historicity cannot be entirely or lightly dismissed."

Garbe also mentions that theory which Sharan gives, that Thomas of Cana was later anachronistically identified with St. Thomas. Neill mentions a book, Thomas, T. K., South India's St. Thomas (Cannanur, 1952), as taking a negative view on the Thomas tradition, but I don't have this book. Frykenberg mentions Alphonse Mingana as having always taken a skeptical view of the Thomas tradition (Frykenberg, p. 91). Mingana's article "The Early Spread of Christianity in India" (available in a few different sources) seems ambiguous, but it does speak highly of Garbe's treatment. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Great. Frykenberg is ok, as is Neill. I've seen Garbe's name before but know nothing about him. Clearly, there is enough for us to say that there are doubts, and your efforts enable us to avoid using a somewhat dodgy source. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Super, and many thanks to Atethnekos. I suggest we draft a paragraph on the scholarly doubts on Thomas (no pun intended) with those sources.Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We have one more article that can be cleaned-up with these sources. :) --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Whereas Saint Thomas Christians is rather better, and may have other useful citations. I have done some copy-editing on Dioceses of Saint Thomas of Mylapore (alluded to by Wiki San Roze); it's tidier, but it's very short of sources/full of OR (strike out whichever does not apply). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP violations

I've recently been clearing out a lot of India-related lists of people that contain BLP violations, usually of caste/ethnicity. Unless a person has self-identified then we really should not note issues such as caste or religion anywhere in content relating to them (including categories). The embedded tables in this article contain quite a few examples, eg: Joseph Vijay. Does anyone have an issue with me doing the necessary? They can always be added back if/when sources turn up. - Sitush (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted without reason

Let me know why my edit was reverted without reason ([4]). The details are well sourced. Moreover, i removed weasel words like "it is widely believed that". Who is to define "widely" here. This is an encyclopedia. Onlygoalsec (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Before going ahead and explaining my reasons, i must suggest that you assume good faith in the future and refrain from making unwarranted accusations against fellow editors, as you made towards me in this edit. Now getting down to it, objectively speaking, your edits seem to be POV and definitely not neutral. This is an article on Christianity in India, not Kerala. Yet you have selectively inserted info about a relatively minor event of a few Dalits being purchased and forcibly made Christians in Kerala, which violates WP:UNDUE. In what is supposed to be a summary of the major significant events about Christianity in Kerala, mentioning the comparatively minor instances of a few Dalits being purchased and forcibly made Christians is equivalent to making a mountain out of a molehill. Its inclusion here lends it undue weight and the appearance of being more important than it actually was. Also, you have sourced info from The Hindu about the fact that it is widely believed that Christianity in India is almost as old as Christianity itself and spread in India even before it spread to many Christian nations of Europe, and substituting it with info from a book whose author is not a reputed historian or academic and which is published by the Voice of India (a partisan right-wing Hindu publishing company). Furthermore as per WP:WEASEL, 'widely believed' is not automatically a weasel word, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, as in this case. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 15:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It is striking how condemnable your accusation of me not assuming good faith in you is while you censor content in Wikipedia on the daffy note on being undue. How is it undue to tell an event that showcases the striking relations between the caste system that exist(ed) in India and spread of Christianity? How is it undue to tell that European missionaries (atleast in this instance) bought the right to convert dalits with money and gifts? Your characterization of this as a minor instance is in denial of the very fact that the spread of Christianity had to do with the casteist feudal structure that was in place and the fact that the spread of Christianity was aided and abetted by European colonizers.

Your assertion to keep the statement "Although ... remain unclear it is widely believed that .. " in an encyclopedia can only be seen an editor's effort to shed undue influence on a reader to the advantage of his perspective. The article must state facts and facts only and an editor cannot draw conclusions what is widely believed/generally believed even when such an assertion is made in the source cited.Onlygoalsec (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained my reasons above, citing Wikipedia policies. I am not keen on repeating myself. Also judging by your poorly framed response and persistent accusation of bias, it seems that Wikipedia guidelines simply do not matter to you and that no amount of repeating myself will make you see reason. Lastly, if my four years in Wikipedia have taught me anything, it is that when someone complains loudly about censorship without providing any evidence, you may be absolutely certain they are up to no good. As such, i have neither the time nor the interest to argue with you. I would like to hear a third opinion on this matter, and please don't set up a sockpuppet supporting you. Here is the disputed edit! Others are invited to decide for themselves, and comment. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 16:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, i am taken aback by your pecksniffian babble about assuming good faith and the way you have assumed me to be. Neither do i have the time and inclination to enlighten a user like you with strong partisan views. This article as of now goes shy of talking about how Christianity spread in India exploiting the caste system. Evidences and sources are available in plenty; but i am sure a user like you will revert it immediately and bite me with your veteran status in Wikipedia.Onlygoalsec (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've restated the claims concerning the age and precedence of Christianity in India over Christianity in some European nations. To back these I've included three scholarly sources (from Blackwell, Cambridge University and Oxford University presses). Frykenberg is a particularly well-respected scholar (having had Rockefeller, Fulbright and Guggenheim fellowships to name just a few of his many honours received). Only the Jones has a Google Book link, sorry, but perhaps you can find online sources for the others. In my opinion, the alislam.org source appears to be without any merit, and the Guardian Newspapers source (recreated at hindu.com) did not even seem to establish anything of the claims being made, besides the fact that the article was not a piece of scholarship on early Christianity but was rather a report on an Action film written by no one in particular. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 10:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Atethnekos! I must clarify that i have not contributed to this article, apart from fixing dashes, anglicizing spellings, and changing the date format. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 11:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(@Joyson: No problem; and no need to explain the sources -- I never assumed you to be responsible for them merely because you reverted to them.) @Onlygoalsec and anyone else interested: Perhaps in the lead's second paragraph we can add something like this: "However, Christianity has also not been without conflict in India." And then a footnote can direct to the relevant sections in the article (the Conflicts section, the arrival of Catholicism section). These sections could be expanded too, for example the Portuguese "rigour of mercy" in Goa including the tearing-down of shrines and appropriation of funds for Christian projects (see Neills 1984, p. 131). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to many edit whatsoever as long as they are neutral and don't violate Wikipedia policies! Christian history in India is a very controversial topic. I trust that you will be neutral in this article. I don't think that the footnotes directing to the relevant sections should be used in this article. I have never seen this example followed elsewhere in Wikipedia. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 21:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding JP's last point, a well-written article needs no footnotes in the lead section at all. And certainly footnotes providing links to sections are not the way to do things. - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• If people want to add information about the progress of Christianity in Kerala in the 16th century, that should be done in an article on Christianity in Kerala. The early origins of Christianity in India are accepted, and the previous phrasing reflected this view. Yes, we do not know what year it came, but there is no reason to doubt in was there well before 500.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• The relations between the caste system and the spread of Christianity is that low caste, especially Dalit, have always been very happy to go to religions that do not treat them as dirt. However, this is only one of many reasons for Christianities spead in India. The claim that slave owning is connected with the spread of Christianity is not sustainable. It is connected more with 19th century mass conversions of people who realize they can leave behind the oppression inherent in the system of their old religions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be a pointless RFC. It is not appropriate to call for an RFC over a reversion or rollback. The Mar Thoma citation is sufficient evidence for the historicity of Christianity in India - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_India#cite_note-missick-15 ... Really, this is a pointless RFC. Whiteguru (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of File:MGR- Pope.jpg for deletion

Hello, this is just a heads up to inform you that File:MGR- Pope.jpg, which is used in this article, has been nominated for deletion at PUF by myself. You can see my rationale and add your input on the nomination page, which can be found here. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Amala-paul13.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Amala-paul13.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Baptistchurchnagaland.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Baptistchurchnagaland.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Baptistchurchnagaland.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox stats

I find the infobox stats to be a joke. Some editor has added South India to the list but considers Kerala and Tamil Nadu to be separate entities. Secondly, I find the list of "Regions with significant populations" to be equally ridiculous for the following reasons.

• If we are to list states with the largest proportion of xtian populations we ought to list the North-Eastern states. The seven sisters are only Indian states (apart from Goa and Kerala) where xtians are extremely conspicuous.
• If we are to list states by population we ought to list all of them. The presence of 3.7 million xtians in TN does not explain the addition of TN in the list. xtians in Tamil Nadu are mainly concentrated in the three southern districts(out of a total of 32) and not equally distributed throughout the state. Secondly, why has South India been added to the list. Karnataka has a xtian population of barely 1.1 million and AP, 1 million. Maharashtra has a xtian population of 1 million but is not mentioned in the infobox. And Uttar Pradesh, too. Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state in india with a total population of nearly 200 million. Even if xtians form less than 1% of the state's population, still they would number almost 2 million and form one of the largest xtian populations in the country. I, personally, feel that the particular list in the infobox should be blank; or only Kerala, Goa and North-East India should be added.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 15:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Marriage Rituals

I have added some more links to authenticate the rituals. The main rituals are same to all the various sub sects within the Indian Christian community.Daphinevadhera (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but you seemed merely to have reverted my removal, and since that had already been removed by others ...

Your contribution was very essay-like and I was not at all convinced by some of the sources that you did use. However, might I suggest something? Why not build the content in your sandbox and ask someone to review it before inserting it here again. You'll need probably to read WP:Citing sources because I have a sneaking suspicion that your sources may cover more statements than was apparent using your method of citing. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Edwards

"..using an early copy of the [Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel|Hebrew Gospel]. James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 266 ... Assuming the book probably says something like this, but either way removed this as a fringe theory. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarity over the "St Thomas Myth"

I question the neutrality and bias of the writer. The myth of St Thomas having come to India is a fallacy as he is said to have visited and died in 3 separate places at three separate times. Most of the Acta Thomae take place in Norther/Central India. Even as such, there is significant debate about whether he even existed, as Thomas Didymus was said to be the twin brother of Jesus. Most church sources put the burial of this (dubious) character in Parthia with the bones having been relocated to Edessa. The Portuguese invented the story of St Thomas in India to justify the destruction of Maha Kapaleeswar temple in Mylapur (Mylapore), to search for his "tomb". The actual Thomas that St Thomas Christians name themselves after was Thomas of Canaa, a Syrian Christian refugee, and most likely brought with him the Syrian Cross and gnostic texts that are still extant within this group. I would advise you to apply the same level of questioning and critique that would be applied to other religiously affiliated groups and not act in blindfaith that everything Christian missionaries say is...the gospel.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=HL35NxR5S_QC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=thomas+didymus+AND+india+myth&source=bl&ots=nVQigS0hvL&sig=br0V6A_GUCEDfhx8VdXoblpza_w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W1cIUZWtCYSXigK984GYDw&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=thomas%20didymus%20AND%20india%20myth&f=false

same book but full copy : http://www.malankaraorthodoxtv.in/Books/The_Myth_of_Saint_Thomas_and_the_Mylapor.pdf

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14658b.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.203.143 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice try but I hardly think any references from a Catholic encyclopedia by Catholic sources hardly counts as an unbiased reference. There is no historical proof of this and I would advise you to clearly state its a myth propagated by the Church.--Rajimus123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.203.143 (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent Numbers on the Total Number of Christians.

Different Wikipedia articles contain conflicting information about the number of Christians in India. According to the 'Church of North India' article, there are 1.5 million members of that congregation. The 'Church of South India' article indicates there are 11 million members. And, the 'Catholic Church in India' article claims some 20 million members. Add just those denominations together and you get 31.5 million Christians at least. This article claims there are only 24 million Christians in all of India. There seems to be a problem with somebody's numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtpeppermd (talk • contribs) 23:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove the list?

This article is pretty big (110,000 at present). It includes a long list of notable people but also a link to List of Indian Christians. I see no point in maintaining two lists, and in particular given that there appear to be numerous violations of our biographies of living people policy. I have, for example, just removed Leander Paes because there is no reliable source here or in his biographical article that supports his self-identification as a Christian. So, can we please delete the list in this article and just retain the link? Then fix the content at the link ... - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I did remove the content and also cleaned up List of Indian Christians to remove BLP violations etc. It was Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) who reminded me that the list needed an overhaul (up to that point, I had been dabbling at it). Alas, Johnmylove (talk · contribs) keeps reinstating it here and judging by their last edit summary is getting somewhat agitated. I am not a Hindu of any description and that edit summary disparaged an entire religion - please don't do it. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you but you have to admit that you have removed a lot of sourced content. In your edit summary, you mentioned that it will be discussed in the body, but it doesn't. I think from the article we should undo the edit 579852807,579852971, 579853027 & 579966048. And yes Johnmylove (talk · contribs) should control his emotions. This is not a place for accusing or abusing others. This is a place for sharing information. You can add unsourced information but it will be questioned and removed if no reference is provided. And you are not supposed to delete sourced material until it is repeated; you can rearrange it somewhere. ~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 11:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me proper diffs please. Working out numbers is beyond me and I don't usually remove sourced info if it is policy-compliant. One problem with pages such as this is that they tend to attract fervent adherents to the belief system and they often have little understanding of our policies. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing issue/single event

I've just removed this. We cannot make much of a "single event" type of situation and especially not when the source is Christian-centric. What the section needs is reliable independent sources that discuss Christian-Muslim divisions etc in a neutral manner and as a generality. The claim that we make, after all, is that this is a trend: cherrypicking individual examples is pointless and undue. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

Is anyone familiar with WP:LEAD and WP:CITEKILL? I cannot see a single source that is required in the lead section as it is at present. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography

I was researching for a separate article and came up with this extensive bibliography. Precisely the sections 37-40 lists books devoted to the topic of Christianity in India. While we can't directly copy paste the sections 37-40 in any wikipedia article due to Copyvio problems a separate Bibliography of Christianity in India might be in order (as a sub article of Bibliography of India).
The reference formatting in the article is however in pathetic state and I will change the article soon to Harvard citation form. Solomon7968 20:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it is absurd to have a separate article in an encyclopedia, just for the bibliography of a country. But since its already there, a subsection for Bibliography of Christianity in India is OK. I think the relevant books should be listed in the Further Reading section of this article and a WP:See Also link be added to the bibliography subsection.
And, I agree that reference formatting should be improved, though not necessarily to Harvard citation form. I think footnotes will be better. ~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 06:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nasrani-affiliated sources

Sources (usually websites) that are operated by or on behalf of Nasrani Christians are only reliable for statements about the Nasrani organisations. They are not reliable for statements concerning general history, demographics etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you are talking about Edward Gibbon, he is not a Nasrani which means Saint Thomas Christians (people of Indian origin). Gibbons is in fact and English Historian, an M.P. and a critic of Christianity. Which means, if his book says that St. Thomas came to India in the first century then it must be definitely true. Because even if it is a christian topic of general consensus having very little doubt it is very rarely featured in a book by a critic of Christianity until its a proven fact. ~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 19:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I am on about Nasrani-related sources, not Gibbon. For example, nasrani.net. However, Gibbon is not reliable for facts and this has been determined at WP:RSN - we would need something more modern than a 200 years-old work. It looks like you might need to revisit WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the source is a little old. But no consensus have been reached in WP:RSN regarding the use of the source as you claim. However, the source was used here to support a claim that St. Thomas reached India in the first century. The only condition you could have removed the source is if you find a better source for the sentence or if you have a more modern source countering the sentence.~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 12:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sex ratio

The lead currently states: Indian Christians have the highest Sex Ratio figures among the various religious communities in India.

Sex ratio is the ratio of males to females in a population. According to the Census of 2001 (Population by religious communities) Christians have the LOWEST sex ratio among religious communities (since they are the only community where the number of women is higher than that of man). I changed the lead accordingly. Gugganij (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Revert by Deunanknute

This is with respect to this revert by Deunanknute. I am not trying to prove or disprove any religion. As per WP:NPOV, all of the significant views on a topic must be presented. The old text stated that 'there is no historical account to refute Jesus not being crucified, and travelling to India'. I have only non-judgmentally added the other view, that there is historical account to believe that Jesus was crucified and died.The Discoverer (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Deunanknute suggests - revert to remove bias, please do not attempt to disprove one religious view with another), I agree with his analysis. What you are doing is disapproving one view and pushing other view when you could do better in the same sentence. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case, one could also say that adding an entire section that goes against Christian beliefs in a section on the History of Christianity in India is a serious attempt to disapprove Christian views and push the other. More so when there is a statement that implies that 'there is no historical account to refute Jesus not being crucified, and travelling to India'. Obviously this is incorrect as there are plenty of early writings, both Christian and Non-Christian that say that Jesus was crucified and died. The Discoverer (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The section 'Jesus in India hypotheses'

The first issue with this section is that these hypotheses don't really have anything to do with Christianity in India. No Christians believe in this, rather, this is an Ahmadiyya belief about Jesus, and as such, it is more suitable in an article on Ahmadiyyas. Neither did these hypotheses have any effect on Christianity in India. Secondly, it is placed in a part of the section dealing with the history of Christianity in India, and gives an impression that this is a part of the history of Christianity in India, when it isn't.

Thirdly, the use of the word 'hypotheses' in the title of the subsection is misleading. A hypothesis is an idea or explanation that has not been tested. In this situation, the first account is a hoax, and the second account is based on the assumption that the accepted scholarly view that Jesus was crucified and died is incorrect. This amounts to a Fringe theory being featured in a section about historical facts. Fourthly, the old text states that there is no historical account to refute Jesus not being crucified, and travelling to India. This is obviously incorrect as there are plenty of early writings, both Christian and Non-Christian that say that Jesus was crucified and died, including the Gospels. However my attempts to add the counterview that Jesus was actually crucified were reverted (twice). As per WP:NPOV, all of the significant views on a topic must be presented.

In view of the above, I feel that this section must either be deleted in it's entirety, because of its non-relevance. If retained, it should be in a separate section from the history, at the end of the article, with appropriate identification that this is a minority theory that does not conform with the accepted scholarly, mainstream view. The Discoverer (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

People also come here for seeing something about that hypothesis, but we have already described as irrelevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

First, I don't think the Ahmadiyya are the only ones who believe Jesus was in India, although they may or may not be the only ones to think he went there post-crucifixion, I don't know. In fact, I know they aren't. The Church Universal and Triumphant and several other New Age groups or new religious movements hold with some variation of the belief mentioned in the first paragraph, even if the scholarly community has dismissed it. I would think that might merit some sort of mention in the article, but don't know how much WEIGHT it might deserve. Taking that into account, I might consider moving the section out of early Christianity in India subsection, because it kind of clearly does not belong there, referring exclusively to later hypotheses not about Christianity but Jesus himself, and there is no evidence to think that this discredited theory of later days played any role in the factual early history of Christianity in India. Putting the current content of that subsection into a separate section, maybe toward the end of the article, maybe with a title along the lines of "Modern beliefs regarding Jesus in India," might be more neutral and acceptable, particularly if there is any evidence to suggest that there might exist some notable degree of pilgrimage to India on the basis of these claims. John Carter (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Christianity in India

I was expecting christianity to be lower in South India given their Hindu influence in south east asia and their colonies. Also given their OIT theory and strong heritage opposing brhamin influences of the supposed remigration of the aryans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As per the Wikipedia guideline WP:No original research, we cannot add anything to Wikipedia articles based on our own opinions, it states "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source", so I'm afraid I have to remove your text.

Regarding your reasoning about the Aryans, I would like to point out that regardless of which direction the Aryans migrated, it did not have anything to do with Christianity, because the Aryan migration happened latest around 1000BC (1000 years before Christ ). Christianity came to India mainly by the sea route. In the first 14 centuries, by contact with the Middle East, beginning with St. Thomas in around 52AD. After Vasco Da Gama discovered the sea route to India in the 15th century, there was contact with Europeans (Portuguese, French, etc.). Therefore, in my opinion, the the higher percentage of Christianity in south India can be attributed to the fact that only south India has a coastline and had contact with the rest of the world by sea.The Discoverer (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hoax vs Story

@John Hill:: I've felt inclined to revert you again, but I don't want to be adversarial. You have a reasonable point in your most recent edit summary The word "story" allows for the possibility they were hoaxes without pretending there is proof - which does not exist. However, there is at least as much reason in my form of converse: the word "hoax" allows for the presentation of the single and unopposed authoritative view without pretending that there is any support for the stories - which does not exist. It is the direct, authoritative classification of the stories that makes the meaning clear to the reader, while hedging bets that are not bets is only obfuscatory. There is no reason to apply NPOV techniques (if that is what you're trying to do) when there is no alternative viewpoint. On the other hand, it is always desirable to write and present material with clarity. At bottom, we may only have a situation of alternate emphases and editorial opinion here. If you have an expansion of your view to give, I'd like to hear it, along with others' commentary, but I'm all for just cutting and running pretty quickly after something like that. It's not worth an abundance of time. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Evensten. Thanks for your note and reasoned response. I did react to the word "hoax" which implies that the stories have been conclusively disproved, which I don't believe they have been. There is no doubt there have been prolonged and detailed attempts to discredit Notovich - especially by the Orthodox, Anglican and Roman Catholic churches (and even to destroy the original manuscripts), but other authorities claim the attacks on him are not justified. I can give you references to these and more information later but, unfortunately, I am just on my way out of the house and will be busy tomorrow - but, if you can spare me a couple of days I will get back to you on this matter. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure; no deadlines. I guess one can look at "conclusively disproved" strictly or more loosely (as I am), letting context decide what the appropriate confirmation ought to be. But if there are actual "authorities" arguing for Notovich's story, that's another story (which I had not heard). Then it becomes a matter of article weight, of course, and "hoax" probably wouldn't be called for. Evensteven (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Notovich account, the account itself would be atleast a fringe theory if not an outright hoax, since the mainstream view stated by Bart D. Ehrman is that "Today there is not a single recognized scholar on the planet who has any doubts about the matter. The entire story was invented by Notovitch". Now, to deny that Novotich had confessed to having fabricated the evidence would be a fringe theory in defence of a fringe theory, so we need to be careful about how much credence and weight we are giving it. But yes, this one could be called a story instead of a hoax.

Regarding the Mirza Ghulam Ahmed account, since the death of Jesus by crucifixion is almost universally accepted as historical fact, it is straightforward to classify this one as a hoax.

The Discoverer (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree on all counts. The Ehrman quote seals the first as a hoax also, imo. I'm willing to wait on what John Hill brings to fortify support for Notovitch, but if Ehrman is correct that "there is not a single recognized scholar" supporting it, it seems to me that that is enough to call it a hoax here. And really, I don't see how much further a disproof could go, or would ever need to go. As for Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, it's pretty much the same thing. Jesus' crucifixion is verifiably accepted as fact, and Ahmed's alternate account is thereby verifiably bogus. Both these things are "stories", yes, but it's not at all too much to say that they are also hoaxes. I think it's misleading to call them merely stories, which is my original objection to John Hill's change. Given that they are fictions, one might also take the position that they have no place in an encyclopedia. However, the presentation of discredited accounts as notable hoaxes is itself informative, especially for those who may not be sure that they are discredited. Evensteven (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Evensteven and The Discoverer: I find myself in a very awkward position here as we are obviously dealing with people’s beliefs which makes it difficult to have a reasoned, logical discussion. Because of this I feel I should make my own position clear at the outset. I am neither Christian nor Buddhist (nor a member of any other religion). I certainly don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or to get into any sort of theological debate. But I think there is insufficient evidence to assert that Notovitch’s writings were a hoax.

This does not mean that I am claiming the information is true – just that I think it is impossible to tell whether it is true or not, unless new evidence turns up. And, of course, even if Notovitch did publish a translation of a real book from the Hemis monastery’s library, this does not mean that the stories in it are historically true and factual. If the book did exist, it is probably best to consider it as a legend and, as with most ancient legends, it is likely to be a mix of historical facts and fantasy.

I must say that I find some statements of yours disturbing, especially these: “. . . since the death of Jesus by crucifixion is almost universally accepted as historical fact, it is straightforward to classify this one as a hoax,” and “Jesus' crucifixion is verifiably accepted as fact, and Ahmed's alternate account is thereby verifiably bogus.” As far as I know, there is no concrete evidence that the crucifixion occurred – only than it was reported in certain ancient documents. Thus, it appears to me a matter of belief – not established fact. For a start, most Muslims do not believe that Jesus died by crucifixion - and there are more than one and a half billion Muslims in the world. Moreover, there are probably billions of other people who do not believe the Christian story.

Similarly, the quote given from Bart D. Ehrman is surely suspect when he says: "Today there is not a single recognized scholar on the planet who has any doubts about the matter. The entire story was invented by Notovitch."

Although Bart Ehrman may be considered a leading biblical scholar by some, he is, apparently, not considered to be a reliable scholar by all. To quote just one of the several criticisms of him in the WP article on him: “. . . some of Bart’s conclusions seem to outrun the evidence — even the evidence that he himself cites. Consider that Bart is looking at the same evidence every other textual critic looks at. He’s 'discovered' nothing new. Yet, hardly anyone goes to the extreme Bart goes to in his conclusions."

I am not attacking anybody’s religious beliefs – you are entirely entitled to believe in them – but I do object when people expect others to agree with their beliefs without concrete evidence to support them. I don’t think this sort of argument has a valid place in the Wikipedia.

After Notovitch first published his book in 1884 there was a huge outcry in Christian circles and attempts soon followed to discredit Notovitch by the Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, amongst others. Some of his critics even falsely claimed Notovitch never went to Ladakh, including the well-known Oxford orientalist Max Müller who was commissioned by the Anglican Church. Later critics of Notovitch, however, had to drop this false claim. These included J. Archibald Douglas who travelled to Ladakh in 1895 to attempt to expose Notovitch as a fraud but did find evidence that Notovitch had been in Ladakh when he said he was, and the famous British explorer and adventurer Sir Francis Younghusband who records meeting Notovitch in Ladakh even though he did not believe his account.

Some claimed Notovitch had admitted he had created a hoax, but Notovitch later denied this and no evidence has ever been presented to show that he did. It is simply a matter of one person’s word against another.

An Indian Christian missionary, Rev. Ahmad Shah, was sent to Ladakh (often known then as ‘Western Tibet’) to find evidence to discredit Notovitch and to destroy the manuscript in Hemis. Shah spent several years in the region and published an account of his adventures, “Four Years in Tibet,” in Benares in 1908. Needless to say, he was unsuccessful in obtaining the book.

I think that all that can truthfully be said about this story is neatly summed up by the noted Tibetologist G. W. Houston: “Notovitch was ignorant of both Pali and Tibetan. It is possible that he was duped! Three explanations come to mind: l. Notovitch was the object of a Ladakh joke. 2. Notovitch was a liar. 3. Notovitch was telling the truth and such a Tibetan book, translated from Pali existed, and probably could still exist.” From: “Jesus and his Missionaries in Tibet.” G. W. Houston. The Tibet Journal, Vol. 16, No. 4, Thematic Issue: Western Religions and Tibet (Winter 1991), p. 11.

I do hope we can now put this matter to rest. Yours sincerely, John Hill (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your statement 'As far as I know, there is no concrete evidence that the crucifixion occurred – only than it was reported in certain ancient documents. Thus, it appears to me a matter of belief – not established fact.' There's an entire section on Wikipedia citing reputed sources on the historicity of the crucifixion. It isn't as though Ehrman is the only person with this view. Obviously this is beyond just a matter of belief, but there's a ton of evidence. And if some people choose not to believe something, that does not make it false. The Discoverer (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I said I didn't want to get into a theological argument - but it seems obvious to me that the WP article you mention has a very heavy Christian bias and probably should be rewritten to make it more objective. Almost all, if not all the "evidence" given in it is based on reports by people of faith who, by definition, believe many things to be true that most other people do not. Most of their "evidence" is really a matter of faith - not science - and frequently it is not even a matter of logic.

I myself neither believe or disbelieve the crucifixion of Jesus - in fact, I find that part of the Christian story quite plausible - although unproven. However, I do find the story of the resurrection extremely unlikely and impossible to accept - but then, I am not a believer. I feel confident in stating that many millions of people would probably agree with me on this.

For an account of the 2.5+ billion Muslims who mostly do not believe Jesus was crucified, see: Islamic view of Jesus' death. I am sorry if this does not sit well with you - but I do think we need to make these articles more objective and carefully worded - the Wikipedia is, after all, meant to be an encyclopedia to be used by everyone - not just Christians. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, John. For my part, please believe that my own belief in Christianity is not at issue here. I would like to point out that the general acceptance of the historicity Jesus' death by crucifixion is carefully separated from any consideration of his resurrection. In Christian belief, the two are both accepted, of course, but generally, the crucifixion is, while the resurrection is not. Another item where I would take come issue with what you say revolves around a characterization of Notovitch's theories as "legend". To me, that seems unfair to legends. I do think that anyone who has ever supported Notovitch would view it as factual, while those who do not would regard it as deliberate falsehood, a hoax designed to deceive. That's scarcely the stuff of legend.

What Ehrman does provide here is a scholarly viewpoint (he is accepted as a scholar), which includes the statement that no other scholars accept Notovitch. So here, we'll need to report Ehrman's view as noteworthy (at a minimum). Also, if some other accepted scholar actually does accept Notovitch, then that can be reported as well, and for equal weight there would need to be equal gravitas of scholarship. Surely, those are matters that don't really involve what WP editors personally believe about Notovitch. For myself, I have no particular convictions about Notovitch at all, though I'd be willing to consider the shared views of the many churches as having considerable weight, especially as they so often disagree about stuff like this. But my real concern is that we have good scholarly opinion that Notovitch perpetrated a hoax, not just the one opinion of Ehrman, but his statement regarding how widespread that scholarly opinion is. As yet, we have no scholarly opinion here that argues the actuality of Notovitch's claims. So my fundamental position is that scholarly opinion labels it a hoax, and we should say it is a hoax. If scholarly opinion can be shown to be otherwise, then and only then is there a case to be made for calling it merely a "story". I appreciate that you think there is not enough evidence to label it a hoax, and I wouldn't know one way or the other, but we both know what the article has as supporting sources, and that is what we need to stick to. Evensteven (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Evensteven: Goodness! This is becoming a very drawn-out exchange on whether to refer to something as a "story" rather than a "hoax." Anyway, I guess we should try to come to some point of agreement.

First, if it is a matter of whether any scholars support Notovitch's story, please take a look at the quote I added to the article from Professor Fida Hassnain who has studied Notovitch's account and related literature (including many ancient documents in Persian and Urdu - of which there is an excellent collection in the public library in Srinigar which he was in charge of) for many years and believes it is genuine. Professor Hassnain is a noted archaeologist and became the Director of the Department of Archaeology for Jammu-Kashmir and was also in charge of all public libraries and archives for the state of Jammu-Kashmir for many years. He has written a couple of books on the legends of Jesus in India. He is considered somewhat unreliable by some Westerners - but I would contend that he was no more unreliable than Ehrman who is clearly considered to be so by some - even some other Christian scholars - it all depends on one's point of view.

Now, you say that referring to the claims that Jesus was crucified and then resurrected "in Christian belief, the two are both accepted, of course, but generally, the crucifixion is, while the resurrection is not." I am not sure what you mean here but, as far as I know, all of the many differing Christian churches require that members believe in both or they are considered to be heretics - and not true Christians. These are considered to be key Christian beliefs. Perhaps you could clarify what exactly you mean here???

Also, I think I have more than adequately made the point that there are probably billions of people in the world who do not believe that Jesus was crucified. As we have seen most Muslim scholars do not accept the crucifixion of Jesus actually occured and I feel sure there are many scholars of other religions, not to mention numerous atheist and agnostic scholars, who do not believe in it either. As such, it is incorrect to claim that it is "generally accepted." unless this is qualified by saying it is "generally accepted among Christain scholars" or "among Christians."

Finally, you refer to Notovitch's "theories." This is misleading. Notovitch claims that he only recorded the translation of a book in Tibetan (which had previously been translated by others from the original Pali). So, unless he is really guilty of a hoax (which I don't believe we can establish for certain) - the story was not his - it was just recorded by him. That should probably be more than enough for now, and I need to get onto other things. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In this quote from Hassnain, we find the report of Notovitch's self-defense and denial (or recant). There is no touching on what Hassnain thought of the account itself. For that, we would need further support from the source, if it's there. I can't check the reference - not available to me. But if we accept Hassnain's report of Notovitch's denial, then I'll grant that that throws doubt on the claim that it was a hoax, or at least that any hoax was his originally. It's not clear to me either that Hassnain ever claimed anything but that the old documents existed and were authentic. That, of course, does not establish the historicity of the document content, only of the document itself. When it comes to Christian or Muslim belief, the whole point is about the historicity of the story itself. I can accept also your argument that Muslims accept neither the crucifixion nor the resurrection. But there are non-Christians, even atheists, who do accept the crucifixion (although not the resurrection), which was the point you asked about above. That, however, is outside the parameters of what we were trying to decide here, which was "hoax" (or not). I will say that it is flawed logic to assume that all Christians are biased, and express a bias every time they speak of religion or its doctrine. The same can be said of Muslims. Bias, when present, is individually manifested, by each person, in each instance, and is neither uniform nor unavoidable, and it is an opposite bias to say otherwise. What about Ehrman, or Hassnain, in these cases? I don't know, can't render an opinion regarding bias. If there is any, the best we can say is that their religions tend to look at the story from opposing viewpoints. So I'll accept Hassnain and Ehrman both as reliable sources stating their views, biased or not. A scholarly view that matches an expected religious viewpoint is not necessarily biased for that reason, for part of being scholarly is the ability to form a professional opinion without resorting to the tenets of one's faith. Having a view, and an opinion, is not the same as having a bias, and in spades as far as scholarship goes. Standards for this kind of scholarship are receding in our day, but they are not gone yet. I'll hold out for professional honesty from both Ehrman and Hassnain until there is demonstrated cause to doubt it. Scholars can also disagree professionally, and honestly. And why not? Scientists do it all the time. "Story" it is. Evensteven (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Evensteven: Hi again! Sorry I have taken a while to get back to you but I have been busy with other things and I have been having trouble finding the best quote from Hassnain to show his views of Notovitch’s work. All through his book A Search for the Historical Jesus. 1994, it is clear that he believes Notovitch was truthful – but is is difficult to find a brief statement about it. The clearest account is probably that on pp. 30-31:

“I felt convinced of the sincerity of Notovitch, and tried to find if any others had seen these scrolls. I did find that in1922, a Hindu monk, Swami Abhedananda, disciple of the late 19th century Vedantist, Swami Ramakrishna, had been to Hemis, and had found out about St. Issa. Swami Abhedananda . . . went on a fact-finding mission, finding the scrolls at Hemis. He was told that the account of the life of St. Issa was true, and was shown a copy of an original manuscript, lodged in Lhasa, Tibet . . .This convinced me that a time will come when the scrolls will be found in Hemis, or in some other Tibetan Buddhist monastery. In his memorandum to his publisher, Notovitch said that he learned from the head lama of Hemis that there existed very ancient records about the life of Jesus Christ, in the archives at Lhasa in Tibet. The same is related by Swami Prajnananda, in an interview with Richard Dick, the husband of the film actress Janet Bock. The Swami says the original scroll is in Pali, and this manuscript was housed in the Marbour monastery in Tibet, but that now there is no trace of it.”

On another matter I was a bit startled when you said: “I will say that it is flawed logic to assume that all Christians are biased, and express a bias every time they speak of religion or its doctrine.” I am sorry if it appeared that I was saying anything of the sort. It was certainly not my intention. I have studied under a number Christian teachers in several countries, including Roman Catholic priests, Anglican clergymen, and others, and some of them were amongst the most rigorous thinkers I have ever met and were crystal clear about the difference between logical arguments, scientific proof, and beliefs based on faith. I learned a lot from them – and never felt pressured to accept their religious beliefs.

I do hope we can leave this debate now and turn our attention to other ways of improving Wikipedia articles. I send you my very best wishes, Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Whatever you can find about Hassnain's view of Notovitch could also be useful to the article, whether it regards only Notovitch's sincerity, or the authenticity of the documents, or the content of the documents (historicity of what they say). I'm fine now with your having changed "hoax" to "story", our present issue, and we can relegate the other observations to considerations for future article improvements, if and when they become possible.

Sorry if I startled you about "bias". I've recently heard all sorts of claims (multiple places) like those I was describing above, but I didn't mean to imply that I necessarily thought you held them. I just wasn't sure, and felt it necessary to address the point here because of how our comments might be taken to any readers of the discussion. How often people misconstrue these things! At any rate, your attitude about it seems to be right alongside mine, which certainly simplifies things. Good talking with you, and happy editing! Evensteven (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)