Jump to content

Talk:Religious violence in Odisha/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Somebody is posting proganda

The following statement "The Panas have converted to Christianity in large numbers and prospered financially " is found nowhere in the referenced material. This is not true and not statistics has being referenced. I like to remove this misleading statement. If you have objections, please let us know why.

--Indiancrusader (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

POV tag added

This article needs sources that comply with WP:RS & also its obvious povs removed.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bharatveer, please read the report from NCM, a government entity. You cannot get a better POV. Also, each statemet is refered. Can you please indicate which sources do not comply with WP standard? Recordfreenow (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

i believe i've fixed the POV, so i'm removing the tag. if you feel it should remain, please list specifiv pov violations so they can be fixed. thanks. --vvarkey (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Recordfreenow (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Tripping Nambiar - if you feel there is POV violation, please list specific instances so they can be fixed. Thanks. Also, the ref you added does not match the text you added to Christmas violence. --vvarkey (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The article as it stands almost entirely confirms with the views of Christian community. Views of the Hindu community/groups should be added to balance the article.--Vikramsingh (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles subscribes to WP:RS. I encourage you to include referred and relevant inforomation from reliable sources. Please do not include content from blogs or opinions that are reflecting agendas. We want this article to be a place of recognized facts on the communal violence in Orissa. So this is also NOT a place for debate on conversion issue. Recordfreenow (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The article starts with: This article provides information on communal violence targeted against the Christian community in the state of Orissa, India. Does that look unbiased?--Vikramsingh (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Vikramsingh, the article is aiming at providing information relevant to a series of ongoing violence on the Chrisitians. However, I am open to it being rephrased as long as it does not make it a topic of another focus. Such as conversion issus, economic backwardness, political and religious agendas. Thanks for discussing. Recordfreenow (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Note that the murder of the Swami is specifically and repeatedly blamed on the Maoist. However note the The Hindu report: Maoists deny role in VHP leader’s murder --Vikramsingh (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This is the only article referring to otherwise. Please know that police claims that they did. Also, this reference is based on assertions being made by the VHP themselves. Thanks for pointing out. I believe you should refer to this article.
It is a case of two sides fighting. See Orissa: Groups trade charges on Xmas violence. The article as it is, only discusses attacks on Christians.--Vikramsingh (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
this aspects has been mentioned. Recordfreenow (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
User:record, Can you show where "this aspects has been mentioned" . User :vikram , User:trips, Please add pov tag for the page.-Bharatveer (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Bharatveer, the report by NCM clearly mentions that there were underlying disputes between the tribes in that area. "The official accounts sought to stress the complexity of the situation in Kandhamal district and attributed the violence to the confusion over the High Court Order on the inclusion of SC Christians in the ST category which is vehemently opposed by the Kui tribes in the area. The situation is certainly complex and overlaid with multi-layered contradictions. The conflation of castetribe-communal issues has contributed to the aggravation of social conflicts in this area". Thanks for discussing Recordfreenow (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
See this http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Orissa_Here_clashes_are_not_one-sided/articleshow/3434175.cms
This article needs to be re-written in a NEUTRAL point of view.-09:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)-Bharatveer (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have included this and removed POV. If you want to add it back, please include specifics as Bharatveer has done. this will help the article overall, regardless of your own POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Are there aspects that still need to be re-written for NPOV? If not, then as user Vvarkey. Remove NPOV tag. Recordfreenow (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, if the writing is on-the-wall for VHP then how am I supposed to build a NPOV? There is unequivical evidence in VHP's involvement in the violence. I would love to find information that proves contrary to the fact. Recordfreenow (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The NMC is governmental; but it has only Minority members. This sway is relevant and ought to be mentioned. Jobxavier (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I think this page should be merged with 2008 Orissa violence. It clears up the notability for that article as well. Perhaps a new name can be "Communal violence in Orissa" or "2007-2008 Orissa violence" (albeit the latter might change). What do others feel? Lihaas (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Lihaas, I would like to merge but as I am reviewing the information, it is quite clear that the August violence FAR exceeds the December violence. I suggest we merge after a few days to determine the best title. Remember that once you have a new title you lose your search engine standing Recordfreenow (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be "Communal violence in Orissa". having the year in the name does not make sense anymore. the incident from 1999 should also be included. I hear what recordfreenow is saying about search engines, but not sure that should be out concern. anyways, is'nt it possible for the old title to point to the new page? not sure how that works.--vvarkey (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename and Merge completed. Naming it Orissa Communal violence was intentional for searches to give this result. Thanks for your cooperations. Recordfreenow (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This article should be re-written in a NPOV . I have added a Pov tag for the time being.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Please specify aspects in discussion that do not refer to NPOV. Cannot accept your description without basis. Otherwise, I advise removal of NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place for any agendas. State facts relevant to political landscape of India. Thank you very much. Recordfreenow (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hoot

I have corrected as per the source cited.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. Recordfreenow (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

formatting

Lihaas, please see my response to each section. Thanks. Recordfreenow (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC) the picture with the caption "The secular fabric of India is in flames during Orissa communal violence" is a little out place. It puts the page out of whack. in like with other wikipages, perhaps it would be better to move it to the top right so the contents table can be where the picture is.

Please recommend edits that help. I think it looks good. We can have different opinion on how the layout should be. I am open to your recommendation. I am sure you would honor agreeing to disagree about layout. I know we are all putting effort to give right perspective. Recordfreenow (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And while we're at it: "The secular fabric of India is in flames during Orissa communal violence" This caption is a little POV too (not religious pov, but secular liberal POV). Why the editorial-like comment of the "secular fabric." Perhaps something like "Violence and burining during the ..."

I have changed it for now as I want to honor your opinion. However, would you not agree that communal violence damages India's secular nature? It is quite alright, if you use this caption at any place where communal violence occurs. The fact is that it does damamge India's secular fabric. It damages secularism period. Regardless from which camp. Violence against a group, especially against minority, is by definition against secularism. You might as well not refer India as a secular country. Do you see what I am stating? Regardless of what persuasion you and I are. I hope you are able to understand and accept the title. Recordfreenow (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, what's the wording for the picture that says "Christian girl who suffered during August 2008 violence in Orissa" How do we know for certainty its a christian girl? Perhaps one can say "victim of communal rioting" (now, don't get me wrong, the other picture of the burned church is fair enough, there's a cross and it's proof as it is) Lihaas (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is we? There are no camps amongst editors. :) At least I hope not. First, the source of the image verifies the identity. Is there way to varify it, yes. See Reuters enclosure of images. [Reuters story in pictures]. It verifies the community background. I have not taken the image from Reuters as hat would be copyright violation. Rather it is from a release by AICC. Thanks for discussion. I really appreciate it. Recordfreenow (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, reuters is a better a source. I saw the wikipedia source before.
"we" meant the reader in general. Lihaas (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lihaas, Within the sectionWP:EL. Please indicate which aspects under section "Links normally to be avoided" do not qualify under policy? All the external links are relevant for the article. Please discuss before random decisions to delete. These are efforts being put. You are welcome to add any reliable sources that qualify. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Recordfreenow (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

According to wikipedia guidelines this is not a "repository of links." And "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. "
Now with this mind let's move to the guidelines piecemeal:
"provide a UNIQUE resource BEYOND what the article" (emphasis added) The links to news articles don't add to the content in the article, they are a reference source for article content, much like there already is.
Furthermore, a web log is not a reliable source.
Once more, "In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site."
Also, one more point. A link to indianchristians? Is that not-POV? You could very well have a vhp link or something while we're at it. Lihaas (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Tell me which links you have a problem with and do not delete all legitimate links. Thanks Recordfreenow (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I just explained the reasons above. All the links go to an article in some paper or journal. Should we disect them 1-by-1? Lihaas (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's do that. Most of the links I have included are indeed Beyond the article and provide (IMHO) a neutral pictur. I do appreciate you coming to discuss before deciding. Recordfreenow (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright Lihaas, let's look at the links I have removed. Side by side.

Recordfreenow (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I just typoed a whole passage with 4 poitns that got wiped because of the edit conflict. Ill get back tomorrow now, im tired. Lihaas (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
opps that irritates when it happens. Sleep well. I appreciate your opinion. I too need to head out to work. Recordfreenow (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The link on 'who is a hindu' is irrelevant. It is a piece by a known Anti-Hindu campaigner.

Jobxavier (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Justice on Trial report

Do editors known much about this organization? I don't know much and would like to learn whether the assertions being made by this organization need to be considered seriously. I don't know if this is reliable source at all. I am leaving it there for now but need more information to make sure it is best to keep it. Recordfreenow (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Added a link to the report from Feb by Justice on Trial. Have not read the report though. [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 09:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The report says their email is jotahd@icenet.net - i sent them a mail but it bounced. not sure what that means! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 09:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe the NGO is legitimate, but the article is heavily biased. I don't believe the NGO made any such statements. There are no press releases/ reports. The article is quoting 1 member, but misleads by indicating that it is the official position of the NGO.--vvarkey (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Getting more and more shady. Doesn't seem to be a reliable neutral source with all this info. Lihaas (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was somewhat suspicious when reading the India Today article, but we can't really judge. India Today is one of India's most respected magazines and it meets WP:RS. I'm however surprised that the Dhamma hasn't spread to the Kandhamal area. Quite interesting.Pectoretalk 23:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
you mean buddhism? most of india used to be buddhist around 5th century AD, but now there's hardly any buddhists left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

world vision

The following edited info would be better suited to the World Vision article (maybe an india section) if need be. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orissa_communal_violence&diff=236885081&oldid=236848444) I think Recordfreenow was right to remove it. Lihaas (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS site http://indianchristians.in

Trips:

Please be careful modifying the text from http://indianchristians.in. It has become almost a revert-war situation.

You have stated that WP:RS is a valid reason to delete this text, saying the reference is from a "christian site". Please read WP:RS carefully. Just because a site is 'Christian' DOES NOT mean it should be ignored. Unless you can prove that the site is an extremist or fringe source, please do not remove said text.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is quite likely to be fabricated, suiting the interests of the organization. Trips (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the website of the All India Christian Council (aicc). Some 5,000 christian organizations in india are members of the AICC. You are making this charge on absolutely no basis. It's hard to take that seriously.--vvarkey (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Background information

It is best that we understand the scope of the article. I noticed that it could very well turn into a debate on Hindutva vs. Christian conversion. This is not beneficial to understand the events. If this needs to be stated then we can include a new section. If there is physical violence against Hindu community then by all means we should include that but let us commit to writing about the violence events. Thanks for your cooperation Recordfreenow (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote the passage that needs to be redone here in talk so we can go over it. Then we'll update the main page.
Okay Lihaas, I am including content with my comments below. The editors can make their viewpoints here.Recordfreenow (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be the two of us most using talk instead of 'revert' ;) Lihaas (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it takes a load off if we can discuss and agree to disagree. Somehow wikipedia at times can seem like an battleground and it does not need to be like that. otherwise, what seperates us from he fundamentalist rioters. Personally I don't think all Hindus are like VHP so it is best to form our sentances that mention the truth for what it is. Recordfreenow (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical Background

  • Franciscan missionary Friar Odoric visited India in the 14th Century and wrote about his visit to Puri in a journal which he later published in Europe. In the journal, Odoric wrote in detail about a huge chariot in Jagannath which taken out annually rathyatra. According to Odoric, people sacrificed themselves to the Hindu God. The Friar's account of the human sacrifice spread throughout Europe and by the 19th century the word 'juggernaut' began to be associated with an object of such proportions capable of destroying everything in its path. At the time Orissa was known in Europe as the region where the oft-mentioned Juggernaut was located. [1]

Is this relevant to the Orissa communal violence. If so, can the editor please build the context to make it relevant for the current scenario? This can be done by establishing a relationship as well.Recordfreenow (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Baptist Christian missionaries first came to Orissa in 1822 during the British rule.[2]

Is this relevant to the Orissa communal violence. If so, can the editor please build the context to make it relevant for the current scenario? This can be done by establishing a relationship as well.Recordfreenow (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  • As one of the poorest regions of India, Orissa has been fertile ground for missionary work.

Is it accurate to establish this relationshioRecordfreenow (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  • In several districts the people have been susceptible to conversion, where they today form a significant fraction of the population.

Again, comments like these would make the article change focus from violence to conversion. I personally do not agree with the work susceptible or to conversion by man. Recordfreenow (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


  • 0. R. Bachelor gives a description of missionary work in Orissa in 1856:[3]
"OUR first missionaries. Brethren Phillips and Noyes, with their wives, having arrived in India, spent the first six months, while engaged in the study of the language, laboring in connection with the English General Baptist missionaries; ...They preached and distributed books as extensively as they were able, and there laid the foundation for our boarding-school system. Six starving children were given them by their parents or relatives, and with them our school commenced. ...Not long after, others were rescued from death, in a time of famine 5 and their number increased to fifty."

Is this relevant to the Orissa communal violence. If so, can the editor please build the context to make it relevant for the current scenario? This can be done by establishing a relationship as well.Recordfreenow (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


The missionaries ran into opposition from the local Brahmin community who opposed their work:

"Another obstacle is found in the power and in fluence of the Brahmans, the hereditary priests of Hinduism. They are the most intelligent, the best educated, and the most influential class. ... They will oppose to the uttermost, both with their legitimate influence and their ecclesiastical authority, the introduction of a system that must necessarily subvert their power and deprive them of the support and confidence of the people." This marked the beginning of the confrontation between the two communities. 0. R. Bachelor expressed satisfaction at the achievements of missionaries in the first few decades:

This could be relvant to historical understanding of dispute. However, is this a RS to be included?Recordfreenow (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


  • "Where for ages past the heathen trod in idolatrous procession, where heathen rites and ceremonies from time immemorial had been celebrated, there a new song is sung, and the God of the Christian is, we hope, worshipped in spirit and in truth"

Is this relevant to the Orissa communal violence. If so, can the editor please build the context to make it relevant for the current scenario? This can be done by establishing a relationship as well.Recordfreenow (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't 100% sure if it belonged. But since the article is about communal violence in general and no longer about the years specifically some background as to the coming conflict makes sense. Though I agree, we can edit it around a bit.
Keep the text in the article and put a clean up tag on the section. Lihaas (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ms staine's forgiveness

How is Ms staine's "forgiveness" relevant in this article. Again selectively using sentences will not make this article NPOV.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bharatveer, don't you thin that it talking about forgiveness gives a neutrality to the situation? I am fine if you have strong instances. The bottom line is that we must express comments coming from both Hindus and Christians that not ALL want a violence but only a select fundamentalist. Who in case of Orissa happen to be mostly hindu fundametalist. Your thoughts? Recordfreenow (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi Bharatveer. I've put back my changes. Please don't blindly revert. You said "Cite as per source" as the reason. All my changes WERE taken from YOUR source. You are welcome to edit what I've written. But let's not revert war. I appreciate your adding this new source and referencing the Wadhwa report. It adds to the article. WRT Mrs Staine, I do believe it is relevant to the section on the Staine murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 12:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lihass: i see you found the ref to Glady's unreliable. Fair enough. I accidentally thought it was from The Week, due to the ad on the top. I will get a better source (I've seen this all over the place). Cheers, thanks for looking out. --vvarkey (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it removed altogether? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orissa_communal_violence&diff=237593215&oldid=237591683) Lihaas (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See section on accuracy below.Jobxavier (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Conversion is not Illegal

I removed the following text:

Conversion of citizens to another religion is an act of crime in Orissa ever since the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act,1967 was passed by the Orissa legislature.reference: [Frontline]. Nevertheless, Christian groups funded from abroad have been infiltrating into Orissa's impoverished tribal areas and carrying on proselytisation. Consequently, Christian population in areas like Kandhamal have increased from 2% to 22% in the past forty years.[4]

This is an incorrect reading of the reference. It is not illegal to convert or help conversion. Per the ref, the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act prohibits the use of force or fraud for conversion.

Also, that's not the appropriate section for this kind of information.

I agree, this article is not an article on conversion but on communal violence. Please start a new section, if needed. Recordfreenow (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a link to the law? It can mentioned somewhere, perhaps in the background, and it'll deflect the POV that's been coming in. (Not the 2nd part, the first part of the quote). Lihaas (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We know that allurements and coercion have been and are there. Shutting it out as Hindu canard is not neutral. Why cant we give comparative figures of Christian population in 1967 and 2001 in Orissa , in Khandmal? Jobxavier (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

explaining edits

In the opening I removed "This article provides history of the major violence that has occurred between two communities. Kandhamal is amongst the most economically backward regions having experienced the brunt of violence in 2007-2008." The first part reads like an article. It should be more encyclopedic w/o a disclaimer. Second part refers to Kandhmal, when the article is about Orissa communal violence in general not only this last 2 months (i think it's left over before the merge) For the "citation needed" tag I removed the source b/c another was removed for a title "BAJRANG DAL: Loonies at Large." Come on, is that POV? Removed "Manmohan Singh belongs to the Congress Party which heads the Indian government" because it's not necessary. It already says he's PM. I added back "Sources in the police said the Maoists..." albeit elsewhere b/c it furthers the precedence. Also the dailypioneer link doesn't work. Lihaas (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, "denied this and claimed that those were preventive arrests for interrogation" is not in the source. So i asked for a new source.
I agree most of "maoist claims" was dubious, but the 1 passage had some citations so i re-added it.
The 'huh' in the text is for hindi words that many readers may not understand. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia.
And the daily pioneer link doesn' work. Lihaas (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

1994 violence

Please try to include this sections also in the article.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Be Bold. Lihaas (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please add all information on the violence that has occured. As Lihaas pointed out. Be bold...but be careful. Recordfreenow (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction should be re-written to include the history of the violence in the state of Orissa. I am looking for references for this section(1994 violence ).-Bharatveer (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

THE SONIA PHENOMENON

Any discussion on Communalism in India after 1984 needs to be linked to Sonia Gandhi. It is only from her entry that Catholic aggressiveness has been to the fore. The mercenary Kerala Christians in Orissa have been militant only during the past ten years. Sonia became Leader of the Opposition in 1999.

Why is it that the Mallu presence in Orissa proselytisation is ignored? Look at the Bishops. That it is Mallus fighting against the indigenous is a track that needs to be explored.

The article is unreasonably slanted. It ought to be encyclopaedic truth; not Christian propaganda.

Jobxavier (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The scope of the article is communal violence in Orissa. So why does this need to be a conversation on conversion? Report the violence and designate appropriate section to convesion. I would suggest that you mention details at the section Forced conversion Be bold but be logical. Recordfreenow (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

DALIT CHRISTIANS

Who are Dalit Christians? Does Christianity accept castes or Dalit-dom? Nobody outside India might understand all this. This needs to be explored in the Article because attempts by Converts to be deemed Dalits, is the core of the issue. Jobxavier (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The seem people seeking SC status, I imagine. dalits who converted but want affirmative action Lihaas (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a wikipedia article already on it Dalit Christian I am outside India and understand it. Recordfreenow (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

BACK TO PRO-CHRISTIAN SLANT

Semi-protected, the Page is back to being a proselytisation leaflet. Could someone add something about Hindu gods' being demons , now?

I suggest that the Page be re-captioned as the 'Missionary Version of the.........'
Someone might consider if propagation of such one-sided anti-Indian stuff would attract provisions of the treason laws in India. We might ask the Cyber Crime Cells of the IB to have a look.

http://bprd.gov.in/index1.asp?linkid=639 Jobxavier (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Get some sources for repute (ie- WP:RS) and then either discuss or add. Lihaas (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I find that one person is using three IDs and ensuring that this Page remains a missionary leaflet. I also find that he is able to arrange pro-missionary edits even when the Page is protected. This is all very sad. Jobxavier (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So what needs to be added? give some source and let's discuss. Lihaas (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not add. Delete the palmplet stuff. See in the Section on need for accuracy.

Jobxavier (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Why are you putting back all the pro-Christian stuff without going through the section on accuracy?Jobxavier (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the article - need for accuracy.

The opening line of this article is currently: "Communal violence between Hindu and Christian groups in the state of Orissa, India, has increased over the past several years."

There is no suggestion in the article itself that Christians have perpetrated any of this violence. This line is therefore misleading as it implies that violence has been at least somewhat mutual. The facts need to accurately summarized in the lead.

Secondly, the very term Communal violence implies mutual aggression, which is not the case here. Therefore, both the title of the page, and the use of the term in the introductory sentence are themselves misleading and inaccurate. Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the title is "orissa communal violence", historical background is necessary and there is not point in censuring that.-Bharatveer (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. I think we can all agree that social and historical context is necessary to making this article better. However, "communal violence" connotes mutuality, which is

simply inaccurate here. I'd note that the WP page for Communal violence notes this aspect of its meaning. Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI , See this Mutuality. The root causes responsible for this violence needs to be elaborated in this article. This violence is just not due to "conversion" as is currently mentioned in the article , Foreign involvement was/is a major factor ( i.e foreign funds to NGOs in orissa). As per Orissa Govt, a whopping 400 crores was received by NGOs during last 5-7 yrs in orissa.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, overwhelmingly one-sided. I'm sure, given the degree of violence, there has been some violent response. But to describe the violence as mutual is profoundly misleading. Currently, the language of the title and introduction is both misleading and implies a moral equivalency that is a clear violation of WP:NPOV As for "foreign involvement", that is a red herring, except insofar as it is seen as a justification by the Hindu militants. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
User:gabriel, You are free to think that way. But since this is WP, this article requires to be written in a NPOV. As I see it , this article has a lot of povs in favour of Christian community. I think even the link ( TOI article) is not in the present version.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Bharatveer, asserting my concerns violate NPOV rather than advancing arguments is profoundly unhelpful. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it is wrong if there is mention that this is only 1-sided in violence. violence is perpetrated by both sides. Also, as for the communal violence page, the definition says the word "refers to a situation where violence is perpetrated across ethnic lines, and victims are chosen based upon ethnic group membership." And that it "typically takes the form of mutual aggression." Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Good points, Lihaas. After having read many of the news reports, I see that "communal" is commonly used. While it would appear to me that "sectarian" may be more accurate, and avoids the undesired connotation, given the common usage and the fact that both ethnic and religious differences have driven violence, I withdraw my criticism of the term "communal". However, the introduction still needs to reflect the overwhelming direction of the violence. I'll make a new attempt at synthesizing the article for the introduction soon. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The part about Steine's forgiveness etc helps only to make out that the foreigner was a monument of compassion, which is not true if you search more. His mission is Aussie funded. That forgiving Christian missionaries are being eliminated is not true enough even by insinuation. The long section about Steine's goodness is unnecessary. 116.68.97.102 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Christmas violence: What made the Christians put up an Arch before a Hindu remple? Was it an act of provocation? And then the Swami who went there is attacked. This part needs to be re-written. Jobxavier (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

'This was followed by exchange of hot words between two groups. Within a few minutes a group of people who were stationed close by pounced on the members of Ambedkar Baniko Sangho with sticks, knives and guns. Two shots were fired into the air'. Who fired the shots? And 'pounced by-'?? This is not neutral tone.

The National Integration Council reference is about a Christian Committee, led by Dr John Dayal, member of the National Integration Council and Secretary General of the All India Christian Council. This is a biased body.

The HRW has always been anti-Hindu and internationally pro American and pro-Baptist.

That the National Minority Commission has only Minority community members in it is very relevant.

Jobxavier (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

HRW is an internationally respected human rights agency; the NIC is a government-constituted body. You should not merely dismiss as biased organizations that say things you do not care to hear. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

HRW has always taken an anti-India, anti-Hindu atand and blindly pro-American Baptist stand in all international issues. That the NCM has only Minority Community members in it is very relevant.

It was not an NIC Report. Only that the controversial John Dayal was in it and that he was also a member of the NIC. Please see the link there. It says it was only a Church committee; not NIC.

Jobxavier (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake on the nature of your objection to the NIC reference. I had thought you were objecting to the NIC, rather than pointing out that it was not the NIC at all. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Undiscussed removals

My issues with the inclusion of the information is that it essentially consists of 1) a partisan accusation and 2) an official denial. And neither is cited at all! Unless there is some further development, this should not be included. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you putting back all the pro-Christian stuff without going through the section on accuracy? Jobxavier (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
See, here is the problem: you regard much of this information as "pro-Christian" or "pro-Hindu", when it is only describing the facts. Dara Singh's conviction for the murder of Graham Staines is not "pro-Christian"- it is a fact. The fact may reflect poorly on certain elements of Hindu extremism, but the fact remains. Removing mention of it is egregious, and frankly, appears to be in bad faith. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is largely pro-Christian stuff in the Net. You are using them extensively without searching for the other side's versions. Why do you object to mentioning that the NMC is a pro-minority body of non-Hindus; yet quote extensively from it? Why do you insist that the John Dayal mission is an NIC committee, when the link itself denies it? Again, while you go on adding sob-stories about Christian suffering, you do not mention the 10 attacks on the Swami with equal emphasis. Steines has a lot about him in the Net, including stuff about his paedophilia and religious intolerance. His wife about the forgiveness is mere charade because she only wants to continue in India to enjoy the Charity funds.

Jobxavier (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Jobxavier, are you serious? After saying that, how can you possibly talk about NPOV? You obviously have a serious axe to grind. Don't grind it on Wikipedia. --vvarkey (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Well, it appears Jobxavier and I are strongly disputing the appropriate direction of this article. Some edits I object to include:

  1. Attacking the messenger- inappropriate comments aimed at undermining the National Commission for Minorities and Human Rights Watch;
  2. The elimination of information about the convicted murderer of Graham Staines;
  3. Stating that Christians had engaged in "Provocations";
  4. Stating, without reference, that Christian converts had occupied lands belonging to others;
  5. Repeating, as fact, Lakshmanananda's claims of numerous murder attempts;
  6. Inserting an inappropriate and irrelevant "criticism" of Sonia Gandhi.

Considering these issues, I am requesting attention from the Neutrality Project. Gabrielthursday (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Gabrielle - Please read the NMC Report for Land grabs by Christians.

Jobxavier (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As an addendum, one can see the relevant edits in this differential: [2] Gabrielthursday (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Jobxavier, you have again deleted the information about the convicted murderer of Graham Staines. i have lost count of how many times you've done this. if it happens again i will have to report it as vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 09:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical background

The Historical background section is need to give the readers a background. Without the background the article is abrupt and looks like a promotional blog.--ISKapoor (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

i think this belongs on another page: History of Christianity in Orissa. Only a brief summary should be here with a link. my $0.02--vvarkey (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree. This section is not properly sourced and not directly relevant. It would be useful just to make the following points: 1) that Orissa has a fairly large proportion of people classified as "tribal" or "backward caste", 2) mthat Christian missionaries have been active in the area since the 19th century, and 3) that there was already controversy about the legitimacy of conversion to Christianity. Let's see if we can draw this from the [[Orissa] article with appropriate sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not relevant to this page, it serves as Christian propaganda in the current context of the article.Trips (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is probably relevant in terms of setting the background to the recent conflicts. Please also see below for a suggestion on how to rewrite the article to Wikipedia standards of proper prose and NPOV. Prince of Canada t | c 01:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not as nothing can be linked from the background section as a cause for the recent violence. Trips (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It sets the stage for what happened later. Let's use an example: the Libertarian party in the United States believes in minimal government interference in the lives of citizens. The history of the American Revolution does not directly link to the development of the political party, but it does provide context as to how and why the party developed as it has, and why it has the policies that it does. Prince of Canada t | c 01:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

All the background section is doing is giving an overview of the earliest missionaries and the typical xenophobia they exhibit after witnessing people and culture who their dogma does not agree with. This has nothing to do with inter-community violence and events that lead up to the recently seen violence on a larger scale in Orissa, which has alreaedy been covered. This section is currently not acceptable, though it can be changed to actually reflect the background of the violence, for example the murder of Swami Lakhsmananda. Trips (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The historical xenophobia, on both sides, is pretty directly relevant to the current xenophobia on both sides. Please do not remove this information against consensus. Again, please read the proposal at the bottom of the page and indicate whether or not you are interested. Prince of Canada t | c 01:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The background must be kept. It reveals the mindset of the missionaries. This mindset sowed the seeds of the violence.

Jobxavier (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image Image:Secularism In Flame.jpg

The image was uploaded by Recordfreenow, who claim that it was obtained from "All India Christian Council".

What is the evidence that it was indeed obtained from All India Christian Council? Is it on their website?

--ISKapoor (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All India Christian Council is Church body . It is not neutral. Jobxavier (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Its also on reuters. ive seen it there.
COuld someone bring these images back? Lihaas (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV review

I saw this dispute, contacted both of the involved editors, and am now going to read through the article. I would like to point out that I have no connection whatsoever to this article or to the people disputing the POV/NPOV of the article. I'll also point out that I'm neither Christian nor Hindu, so there's no bias there, either. I'll post my comments shortly. Prince of Canada t | c 09:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, this is much appreciated. It has been painful trying to keep this page civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 09:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay.. I've read through the article, and I can see one or two minor points that seem to violate NPOV, but nothing serious. The more pressing issue, I think, is to rewrite the article to WP standards. However... could each of you please, without referring to the other person or to past actions, list point-by-point where you feel there is too much POV? Thanks. Prince of Canada t | c 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Where to start?
  1. "Though the Constitution allows only for the free practice and propagation of one's religion in India,[citation needed] Christian missionaries have been arguing that spreading their faith is a religious duty of Christianity." This statement implies that evangelization is not part of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.
  2. "The Orissa government's records reveal the unimaginably huge funds received from abroad by the missions through overt channels. The transactions through covert channels are not available to public scrutiny." This involves both unsupported speculation ("covert channels"), plays on xenophobia, used charged language ("unimaginably huge"), and implies there is something insidious about this practice (again "covert channels").
  3. "The pandal was erected on the very site used by the Hindus to celebrate the Durga Puja festival in October." Again, an uncited statement which goes beyond the available information to suggest that the Christmas decorations were impinging on Hindu space.
  4. "Taking serious note of the attacks on churches and Christians in Orissa, the National Commission for Minorities, a body comprising of only Non-Hindu members..." The NCM is adequately described in the wikilink; and this appears to be an attempt to imply that a government-appointed body established for the protection of minorities is necessarily biased.
  5. "The Church in turn demanded dismissal of the state government." Aside from the poor grammar of this insertion, it also does not appear to be supported by the reference. In the absence of a reference supporting the statement, it tends to imply Christians made strong political demands as a result of the violence.
  6. "He was regularly receiving death threats and the last threat letter had been submitted to the Police only the day before the murder. on Trial report on Kandhmal violence A citation as fact from a source that definitely is not a reliable source. Justice on Trial appears to be a pro-Hindutva lobby group that principally acts in the interests of Hindu rioters "Saffron NGO to help rioters" - The Milli Gazette It may be true, but we need a better reference. As it is, it should be included as a claim of Lakshmanananda.
  7. "The situation was so volatile that Minister of State for Home, Prakash Jaiswal, and other Congress leaders belonging to the Congress party at the centre chaired by Sonia Gandhi, an Italian Catholic" Why Sonia Gandhi is relevant is a mystery to me. This appears to be another attempt to imply bias on the part of the National gov't, and appeal to xenophobic sentiments.
  8. "The Court said that no act of Dara Singh had directly led to the deaths." A false statement that is unsupported by the reference, and obviously promotes a pro-Hindutva POV.
  9. "The Panas have converted to Christianity in large numbers and prospered financially." Again, no reference is given, and the implication appears to be that conversions have been mercenary, playing on the pro-Hindutva myth that perfidious missionaries bribe innocent Hindus to convert to Christianity.
  10. "Swami Lakshamananda, a respected Hindu Guru..." Respected by whom? He's alleged to have played a significant role in orchestrating the Christmas violence of 2007. He was on the record as opposing religious freedom in the area.
  11. "The Report did not consider aggression by Christians in the riot." Umm, maybe because there wasn't any to consider? It both implies that aggression did exist, and implies that the NCM was biased in not addressing it.
I may be missing some things, but I think that's quite a bit already. Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

India is a secular socialist Republic according to its Constitution. That is why we Christians still survive there, even while killing Hindu leaders. India is not Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Vatican. Evangelisation is not permitted, though free-will convertions are. Yes, the Church uses covert and overt channels. The amounts are very huge if you know the actual value of such sums in India. The Pandhal's location is mentioned in the NMC Report. See given link. It is a non-Hindu body. It needs to be mentioned because half the Page is an NMC Report only. It is because it is anti-Hindu that it has been used here at all. Kindly explain the error of grammar. The Christians met the PM, appealed to Sonia Gandhi, the Pope, US Government etc also. Links to prove arm-twisting by the Church can be submitted. "You are the only person who is performing the noble duty of Jihad Akbar through MG. God is witness to the fact that there is no match in our community to your services and efforts. Please continue rendering your valuable service to the community like a silent warrior. Salik Dhampuri, United Muslim of India, New Delhi" [from the link to Milli} The Milli is a Jihad instrument? If so, can it be used as support? Kindly search Sonia Gandhi to know more. If need be, links can be supplied. Kindly read the Rediff link again. Many neutral links about Pana prosperuty. Read the NMC Report. He is respected by 80% of the population of the area. Please check what the Pope said about him. He was against conversion. There are neutral links to peove it. Religious freedom is not freedom to convert people. It may be that Christians stood around to be killed by Hindus? The NMC does not mention having checked Christian atrocity, though the Report mentions that two non-Christians were killed. It may be that your POV is making you miss things? Jobxavier (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have asked Jobxavier to comment as well. After he does (or if he declines to do so), I'll comment on what both of you have said. In the meantime, I'm going to clean up the broken/bare references and external links. Prince of Canada t | c 05:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User:gabrielsunday's First point , Please see an article written by Kanchan Gupta on the same topic in The Pioneer (Indian newspaper) .(http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=KANCHAN195%2Etxt&writer=KANCHAN&validit=yes) . From this Article 25(1) of the Constitution says: "Subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion."  ; and further That the constitutional right to 'propagate' does not mean the right to 'convert' was clarified by the Supreme Court while upholding the validity of anti-conversion laws -- the Freedom of Religion Act 1967 and the Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam 1968 -- in Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. Chief Justice AN Ray, in his ruling, left little scope for confusion between propagation and conversion -- the two, he said, were different: "What Article 25(1) grants is not the right to convert another person to one's own religion by exposition of its tenets." The court also ruled that States, bearing in mind their responsibility to maintain public order, have the right to adopt laws "prohibiting conversion from one religion to another in a manner reprehensible to the conscience of the community"..
I think this shows that "evangelization" is no where "supported" in the Indian constitution.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not our place to argue legal questions. We can report on the facts: The judge said X. The Christian missionary groups disagree[citation needed]. Prince of Canada t | c 06:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point, Bharatveer. As it happens, I am a lawyer, so permit me to parse a little: The activity that the text implies is not within the constitutional guarantee is "spreading their faith" - which would principally seem to me to be about testifying, preaching and proclaiming the Christian gospel- all of which must be seen as at the core of the constitutional guarantee of "propogation" - if anything is. That said, I do find that a very curious decision- even if the reference to propogation does not protect the right to "convert" someone, surely the right to "freedom of conscience" is a guarantee of the individual's right to change one's religious beliefs?
At any rate, as it stands now, the reference is overly broad. I'm not sure of how relevant it is to this article, but you've certainly intrigued me about the subtleties of the legal guarantee of religious freedom in India. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with UserPrince that judgement can be used as such without any elaboration .
User:Gabriel , I dont think there is any "intrigue" in the legal guarantee of religous freedon in India. These laws were created maybe because "our" leaders did not want a Rwandan Genocide to happen in India.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the source for the claim of the Church that they can spread the word? where did they so argue? The link to their having so claimed is not available. Jobxavier (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not the problem. But if necessary, we can put in a cn. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The mention about the Pandhal is in the NCM Report on the 2007 riots. This Report is given as a Link in the Page. Jobxavier (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, I see now where that comes from. I think there can be a better way of putting it, though. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Government Statutory Report on the Foreign donations received by NGOs etc is given in the Page as a Link. The amounts received by christians are huge in money terms; we may compare it with the number of christians in orissa. Jobxavier (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we may not compare them. That is original research and is expressly forbidden. Prince of Canada t | c 18:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
And it's irrelevant anyways. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The riots are about converting through allurement with foreign money. Minus foreign money, there would nt be any riot. I dont know if the govt report is irrelevant. Jobxavier (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing: you don't know that. It is your opinion. I would like to ask all of you to hold off on any further comments here, or edits to the article, until someone picks up the case at MedCab and you can all have a nice civilized discussion with someone impartial. Prince of Canada t | c 19:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see my responses to Gabrielthursday, below his comments. Jobxavier (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, please wait for a mediator to help you all work through this and make sure the article is neutral. I'm getting to the point where I am going to request formal and binding mediation on all of you. I don't think any of us wants to go through that, so please, just leave the article alone until you have all resolved your differences at the Mediation case I opened. Please? Prince of Canada t | c 23:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Other issues

I really appreciate the NPOV work being done, but agree there are other areas for improvement.

The one thing that really disturbs me is the pure hatred being spewed on these talk pages.

For eg., a few sections up, under "Undiscussed removals", to quote user JobXavier:

"while you go on adding sob-stories about Christian suffering, you do not mention the 10 attacks on the Swami with equal emphasis. Steines has a lot about him in the Net, including stuff about his paedophilia and religious intolerance. His wife about the forgiveness is mere charade because she only wants to continue in India to enjoy the Charity funds."

Totally unsubstantiated statements about a man brutally murdered. I do not have experience in dealing with this type of behaviour on Wikipedia. --vvarkey (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should concentrate on fixing the article first. Hopefully a byproduct of that process will be a greater respect between the involved parties. Prince of Canada t | c 10:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Shall we forget about foreign donations? Jobxavier (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Brutally etc is opinion. i am ready to agree with Vvarkey. Let us just caption the page Brutal Violence By Hindus against Christians. If sites about Steines are needed, they can be given. Jobxavier (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Jobxavier (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Brutally" may be opinion, but 1) it's on the talk page. vvarkey is, unlike some, not inserting POV into the article itself. and 2) it's the only reasonable opinion available. The man was burned alive in his car with his two sons. Gabrielthursday (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There were no eye-witnesses to 'burnt alive' etc. I suppose Lakshmanananda was dead before being riddled with bullets and smashed by grenades? Unpleasant truths need not be hatred. I am a Christian too, only that I know about how the missionaries actually operate. Jobxavier (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

After a quick review of the article, I am raising the following concerns.

  • In this edit, the attribution for Human Rights Watch was changed from "international NGO" to "outfit". HRW is one of the most respected international human rights organization. I believe "international NGO" is the proper attribution for HRW, not "outfit".
  • The article has several unsourced claims. Some of these unsourced claims are:
    • By December 29, 2007 nearly 700 persons of both faiths, mainly Christians, had to move to government-run relief camps to avoid attacks.
    • By August 29, 2008 at least 20 people were killed and 3000 people were reported to be living in government run relief camps. 1000 homes had been set on fire.
    • The church network - including the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India, the Evangelical Fellowship of India and the National Council of Churches in India - organized for all Christian institutions to remain closed on August 29, 2008 in protest. This led to accusations of misusing educational institutions for politicking.
    • In the section for Italy's response, there is a claim This invited protests from the Indian media as uncalled-for interference. Per WP:V, these unsourced materials should be properly referenced or removed.
  • The Response section states: Taking serious note of the attacks on churches and Christians in Orissa, the National Commission for Minorities, a body comprising of only Non-Hindu members, sought a report from the state government on the violence in four towns of Kandhamal district. It is obvious this organization is for protecting the rights of religious minority in India. There is a wikilink for National Commission for Minorities. But the attribution "a body comprising of only Non-Hindu members" is poisoning the well.
  • Is it possible to shorten the National Commission for Minorities report section? It is simply a copy-paste, it will be better if only the summary of the report is given in the article without copying it in detail.
  • The Staines killing section states Graham Staines was an Australian missionary working with the Evangelical Missionary Society of Mayurbhanj, an Australian missionary society. Actually he was involved in running hospital and clinics for leprosy patients. [3] Thus an alternative suggestion: Graham Staines was an Australian missionary working with the Evangelical Missionary Society of Mayurbhanj, an Australian missionary society and ran a hospital and clinics for leprosy patients. This should be mentioned in the Staines killing section because it is an important event in the religious history of India after 1947 and he was involved in what kind of activities should be mentioned.

The parties actively involved in the article should be more cooperative. The article is supposed to give a balanced outlook between pro-Hindutva and pro-Christian POV, but I feel some edits are slightly slanted towards pro-Hindutva bias. It is best to avoid pro-Christian and pro-Hindutva sources as references and the article uses mainstream newspaper sources which is a good sign. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image

With respect to image with burnt wounds [See Image of Namrata]. I had made repeated citations in discussion area, as well as within TALK that the authenticity of the images was validated by articles within Reuters, Wall Street Journal and Tehelka. Even Wiki commons editors have accepted the image as reliable source. See the following links.

  • 1 The Reuters article where the same photo of girl was referred as Christian and from Orissa. [See Reuters section] See image 8 of 30 in Reuters.
  • 2 The Times magazine article where the image was referred as Christian and from Orissa. [See here] This editor removed the citation.
  • 3 Section in wiki commons where the image license was accepted. [see here]

Please let other POV mention why it is not a valid inclusion. Thanks Recordfreenow (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The image is verifiable through other sources. Also wikipedia has images from original sources like Image:GaoRongRong.jpg in Persecution of Falun Gong, Image:Tskhinval after Georgian attack4.jpg in 2008 South Ossetia war. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The image was taken from the Christian Council. The pic was inserted on that site 24 hours after violence started when there were no communication facilities in the riot area. Further, what in Heavens is the relevance of the pic? Jobxavier (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Its relevance as a textbook propaganda tool. Something that you will find on brochures of Hinduism Christian organizations distribute. Trips (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the above explanation. Recordfreenow (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Using gory pics of children for propaganda is a violation of UN and WHO rules. Jobxavier (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I have a suggestion for fixing this page.

  1. What if everyone who has been involved in the disputes stop editing, per the Mediation case that has just been closed?
  2. Then, get a couple of completely uninvolved editors who enjoy cleaning up articles to come in and rewrite the whole thing from top to bottom
  3. After that process is completed, if anyone disputes the NPOV of the article, they bring their specific objections here. They don't edit the article!! They quote what they feel is the POV section and explain why it is POV, and the neutral editor(s) who did the rewrite will be asked to make any edits that are agreed-upon.

Thoughts? Prince of Canada t | c 17:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea at the outset. In any event I have reduced my contributions a lot since past 10 days and, I guess, it may work for others to do the same. The only concern is that there has been a lot of research that has been undertaken and it may be a challenge to pursue those for a re-write. Also, a lot of reliable source citations have been removed. In any event, I am realizing that this is hard work and so I am all for your suggestion. I too would like to contribute at other places. Thanks for your inputs. Recordfreenow (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for all the effort. --vvarkey (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's two. I have an editor on board to tackle this project; she is well-known for writing excellent GA and FA class articles. Waiting on the other people involved in the dispute to sign on to this. Prince of Canada t | c 01:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Trips (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Three, awesome! Prince of Canada t | c 06:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I have limited time before being away from WP for quite a while. If I have time, I want to try and contribute to this article before I leave. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hiya. Thank you for your good faith edit to Orissa religious violence. There has been a seemingly endless series of accusations of POV from various editors to the article, which is why the tag was there. We are (I only became involved due to seeing the issue via Huggle) inching closer and closer to resolution. I hope you won't be offended, but I will restore the tag to the article; removing it, I think, will serve only to fan the flames on both sides. I hope that is okay with you? Prince of Canada t | c 05:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not the question of fan the flames on both sides If an article has written without any bias and all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, no need of keeping NPOV tag. So could you please clarify in which part it is lacking from it? --Googlean (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, both sides are alleging POV in a wide variety of sections; take a look at the talk page here for a sampling. I'm trying to be polite when I say this: can you please just stay out until we have a chance to get to resolution? Prince of Canada t | c 06:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
What resolution can we reach in this controversial stuff? I could see from the previous discussion that the advocates who are in support of pov have not reached in any consensus as there is no pov violation here. That is the reason why I removed the pov and I still stand for against adding pov here as each views that have been published by reliable sources. --Googlean (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope that we can reach a resolution in which both sides agree that the article is NPOV. They have not reached consensus as both sides think there is POV material within the article. Yes, both sides have views that have been published; it is the presentation of those views that is the issue. Again, I ask respectfully that you not intervene while we are trying to reach a consensus. Prince of Canada t | c 07:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop saying me to not intervene. That is against our policy that Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Sorry to say that if I see some unencyclopedic, I will edit it. Anyhow, I am not edit-warring here to remove the POV tag. --Googlean (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you are not edit warring. What I am saying is that the situation at this article is pretty delicate, and any changes are likely to make the attempt to seek resolution more difficult. You have done nothing wrong. All I am asking is that you step back so we can resolve the disputes. Nothing more. Ok? Prince of Canada t | c 07:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please enlighten me as to how the allegedly Christian girl's pic from the Christian site is essential for encyclopedic truth? Could Recordfree obtain a pic of the raped nun?

Jobxavier (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a section above for discussing that. Are you interested in the proposal I have made for rewriting the article? See above. Prince of Canada t | c 21:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an unacceptable and uncivilized method of discourse engaged by Jobxavier, and it is typical of the tone he uses in these talk pages. I have just made a Wikiquette complaint on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Jobxavier --vvarkey (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been referred to the mediators. I agree that NPOV needs to be addressed, but I believe this editor should be taken to task for repeatedly making uncivil comments as well. --vvarkey (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I repeat tht if an allegedly burned and miraculously healed girl's pic that appeared a day after the violence began is encyclopedic truth, the raped nuns' pics should also be here.

Jobxavier (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I urge that the Page be re-written by a non-priest and a non- Christian [unlike VVarkey and Recordfree]

Jobxavier (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Unreliable source

^ "The clout of Sonia Gandhi". Ivarta.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-18. Is this a relable source? Recordfreenow (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed section

I urge the cabal who blow up the disputed section to stop your total destruction of contents and use refimprove section tag, if you really want to add. --Googlean (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As said before this POV material will not stand. Its referenced but it provides no background to the actual events. Defend it or it will be removed. Trips (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats are not a very good way to develop WP:CONSENSUS. Also, I thought you had agreed to my proposal above, step 1 of which was no more editing? Prince of Canada t | c 11:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The background section is equivalent to me posting a referenced section on forced conversion in India to this article, it is irrelevant. No progress is being made. Trips (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that you do not have consensus on that issue. Let me ask more clearly: do you or do you not agree with my proposal above? Prince of Canada t | c 12:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the neutral editor proposal, but where is he/she?. Trips (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you agree, please stop editing the article. POV concerns will be dealt with during the rewrite. She said it will take her a week or so to do the writing, as she needs to do some research. Prince of Canada t | c 12:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Many of you may have already noticed that this article is now fully protected from editing. I was forced to request it, as the MedCab isn't working (yet), and the article is still subject to edit wars. I made a proposal above for having the article rewritten by an uninvolved third party. Unless there are any objections, I'm going to go ahead with that now. Cheers. Prince of Canada t | c 02:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you protected the article because of vandalism fight on blind content elimination by sock? Instead of giving warnings to the vandals, I feel the protection is unwarranted at this stage. I also have noticed that after protection, the deleted material is still outside of the article. Please restore the content immediately. Otherwise, I am going to raise the issue at ANI and later to ArbCom. Thank you. --Googlean (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an admin; I merely requested the protection to stop the endless edit-warring back and forth. Threats, by the way, are really not a good way to get things done; note that the protection box explicitly does not endorse the current version of the article (and for that matter, neither do I; I feel the deleted material should be in); the sole purpose of the protection is to end the ridiculous back-and-forth. I suggest that we allow the MedCab and rewrite to handle content issues for now. Prince of Canada t | c 04:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
As can be seen in the history, the vandal who vandalized the page had caused protection. Other editors were reverting his vandalism. Is that the rationale of protecting a page? I echo my comment that the protection is totally unwarranted at this stage. --Googlean (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Content disputes aren't the same as vandalism. Again. There has been edit-warring going on here for ages. The protection is forcing any edit-warring to stop until the dispute is resolved. Prince of Canada t | c 05:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not edit-war, It is called vandalism i.e destroying contents. It has to be dealt with blocking the slayer. --Googlean (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Continual addition/deletion of the same material is an edit war; continual back-and forth over included material is an edit war; ongoing "that's POV" "no that's POV" is an edit war. Feel free to ask for the block to be lifted at WP:RPP. I think it's a very bad idea. Prince of Canada t | c 06:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I raised the issue over there as I am not convinced on the questionable edit by vandal and subsequent protection. My simple logic is that if a section contains unreferenced material, it has to be improved by adding unref or refimprv tags, instead of blanking. --Googlean (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Outdent - Whether the edits in question are edit-warring or vandalism isn't particularly important. 3RR complaints should be made against the individuals in question- however, looking at the history, we don't even have a recent 3RR violation that I can see. The situation is under control, in my view, and the edit-warring, if we want to call it that, is on the mild side. The complete block means that no edits, constructive or not can be made, and this article needs a lot of work. I've requested an unblock. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to hit 3RR to be considered edit-warring, but whatever, I'm about ready to wash my hands of this whole mess. Prince of Canada t | c 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You need to calm down, guys, POC is trying to help. I honestly think that I can't help this article any longer. I don't want it to go to ArbCom but it might have to. I plead that these users take it lightly and stay away from the article for a week. Cheers. —Sunday • (Testify!) 11:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I find that POV edits have been done even while protected...Jobxavier (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That isn't possible. Prince of Canada t | c 09:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for split

In my view, the links between the events on this page are fairly indirect. In my view, we should split the page up, into 3 main articles- the Graham Staines information should be at his page; 2007 Christmas religious violence in Orissa and 2008 Religious violence in Orissa. No doubt the titles can be improved. The main page for this information should be Anti-Christian violence in India- the subpages should deal with the discrete incidents, rather than geographic areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielthursday (talk • contribs) 11:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Christian Violence?? I am happy that the Article is protected and is being re-written. I suggest to those with NPOV to go back to the Article as written originally by Recordfreenow. I am happy that I, a pious Christian myself, have been able to contribute to its being transformed from a Missonary pamphlet. The history of the Article reveals why violence happens in Orissa. If there is this much violence in a Wiki article on the subject, how much might these people be actually doing in Orissa!! Jobxavier (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is not just in Orissa. It is happening to Bihar, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. So i think 2008 violence against Christians or something like that. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right. In Orissa, they tried to kill the Swami nine times; and succeeded the 10th time. In Karnataka, they have been circulating vulgar pamphlets about Hindu gods for 3 years and now have finally provoked the Hindus. In Kerala, the suspects have told the Police that they were paid to do it by elements within the Church itself to drive attention away from the rcent sex and money scandals about the Church. The priest socks have already done an anti-Christian violence Article in Wiki on 27th Sep. They know not what they do.... Jobxavier (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors and Admins, Please take note of the comments above by this user. They are provocative and not in good faith. In short, not objective. Recordfreenow (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


Each of my statements is sourced NPOV. I can also source statements by two RCC Bishops of Kerala that violence is due to conversion by fringe evangelical outfits of dubious origins.

Jobxavier (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins, this user Jobxavier continues to make bigoted statements and personal attacks on other editors. I referred the user to Wikiquette, but they referred it back here because of the Dispute Resolution. Could you please make sure that civility is maintained on these pages while the Dispute Resolution is ongoing? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 16:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the split. The violence however is reciprocal, so lets redirect to Religious violence in India. Those Gandhians really love their fighting!Pectoretalk 23:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The comments made by VVarkey are unsubstantiated. They are extremely uncivil. He has been trying this tactic against anyone that does not agree with his POV. He needs to be suitably counselled. Jobxavier (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If he is so bad as you say, please differentiate yourself through fruitful discussion and factful edits.Pectoretalk 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles

  • [NDTV 24x7 Special], “Orissa Violence: In the name of God”, Jan. 9, 2008 This English news channel from India broadcast an excellent 20 min. investigation into the anti-Christian violence which occurred over Christmas 2007 in eastern India. It was broadcast at 23:30 IST. Recordfreenow (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


I am adding articles in the talk page, as the admins are having a difficult managing users which oppose and don't contribute and not allowing editors who are BOLD about writing. Recordfreenow (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Recordfreenow

See http://www.thehindu.com/2008/09/30/stories/2008093054120400.htm first. Jobxavier (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you Jobxavier, this is a good news. I am glad to read it. Appreciate your contribution. Recordfreenow (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has been following this discussion - this is what I notice. The violence is complex....that doesn't DISPROVE the fact that there was violence...which is what the article is about.

Jobxavier - I have found your language to be the most uncivil and biased here, very interesting that you are complaining!!! I also saw you bringing religion in and personally attacking other editors over their religion. Open question to ANY admin - isn't that a violation of some WIKI policy? And if so how the user being allowed to post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by pk1122 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected

These edit wars are on-going. I've reprotected the article for a few days. Please use this "war-free" time to initiate some discussion, or at least try to resolve the discussion that has been on-going. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why few days make it two months until when someone rewrite the article in separate page. Also can you revert the edits made by Tripping Nambiar and Jobxavier to Recordfreenow. --SkyWalker (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Admins will only make edits to protected pages if the edits reflect consensus. There is currently no consensus, therefore I doubt that any admin will make any edits to the page. Prince of Canada t | c 09:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that we Admin restores it to when the last edit was removed. I suggest, [this one. Thanks. Recordfreenow (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Since there is no consensus on which version of the page should stand (obviously), admins cannot edit the page one way or the other. They cannot take sides. Prince of Canada t | c 09:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I am ambivalent to taking sides and really dont mind how and when this is re-written. However, the current version's section on National Commission on minorities is clearly MISQUOTING the report and also misrepresenting a Government of India agency. This is in violation of WP:CITE. It is not even cited and the one there was earlier was at least cited. It is a matter of common sense and not taking sides. Recordfreenow (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
By all means, find an admin and ask them to make the edit. Prince of Canada t | c 09:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
What do other editors/Admins think?Recordfreenow (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Half the Article is made up of the NMC Report. Such sourcing is ridiculous. The NMC is a non-Hindu body. It has no administrative powers. In India, there are many such government Commissions to satisfy each pressure group. India is not an Islamic country,r Israel or the Vatican. We are a democracy. However, the NPOV part of the NMC Report slone is being objected to by Recordfreenow.

Jobxavier (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Jobxavier (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: Israel is actually a democracy. Whether or not the NMC has administrative powers is immaterial; did reliable third-party sources report on its findings? If the answer is yes, then the NMC may be used as a reference. Whether or not it's relevant to the article is up for discussion. Might I suggest that you actually discuss the content without attacking other editors? I also suggest that you please read about how to assume good faith and be civil before commenting further. Prince of Canada t | c 12:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I think Jobxavier's frustration (which he vents the wrong way) is on the fact that NCM findings are taken as hard fact, when they really are just the findings of a notable commission which deserves space, but only inasmuch as the source tells what they said. Even while reading this page, I gained the idea that its findings were taken as fact as well. I cant really comment on some of the Israel/Islam rant, but JX certainly has a point here. Also its interesting that the Justice on Trial link from India Today (India's Most widely read magazine) was unceremoniously removed, even though it was also covered by a very notable source. This is probably where JX's distaste for some of the users (who really have not been bastions of good editing behavior themselves) comes from.Pectoretalk 23:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, since the NCM is GOI body, the NCM report is used for policy making and setting up minority redressal. It was set-up for the express purposes of addressing advocacy WITHIN the government and not outside of the government. There is always a thin line between facts and findings. If you do a search on <Orissa violence> on Google, you will read glaringly "interesting" POV which would make the article the most neutral on the internet. There is no frustrations within JX, the editor is just not wanting the article to stay. I think this may only be resolved through Arbcom. Recordfreenow (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In India, they have Government Commissions for every group. These are not taken seriously even by the Government. Each Commission submits POV reports to protect the group that it is named after. The NMC is a body with only non-Hindu members. Taking its findings as unbiased truth and using them to make up half of the article is extreme POV. Jobxavier (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. India is a country that does take its constitution seriously. NMC is Indian government and this opinion cannot be changed by an editor who is pushing pro hindutva POV without substance. Recordfreenow (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am no Hindu and am no Hinduist. But I am against Christian propaganda in WP. Recordfree's suggestion that a Christian should necessarily be pro=missionary is unfortunate. I am only for truth and neutrality. Please see Bishops' views here. http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2008093054120400.htm&date=2008/09/30/&prd=th& Jobxavier (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jobxavier - why do you comically bring up your personal religion over and over again? and also the religions of other editors? we don't care what your religious persuasion is. and it's none of your business what religion other editors here follow. --vvarkey (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Prince of Canada - "Whether or not the NMC has administrative powers is immaterial; did reliable third-party sources report on its findings? If the answer is yes, then the NMC may be used as a reference" The GOI has not accepted the findings, as they are only opinion. Nor has anyone analysed the findingsJobxavier (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
GOI=Government of India? It doesn't matter what the government thinks. Did third-party reliable sources report on the findings? I strongly suggest that you re-read our policies on verifiability again. Prince of Canada t | c 12:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Government investigation that is generated into a report IS a reliable source. I don't understand how that violates the reliable sources policy. Yes, it does matter what a quasi judicial body of a country indicates. Are you saying that Reuters would be more accurate than a judicial body of a government that collects facts and evidences? Recordfreenow (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It violates the requirement of 'third party'. WP:SPS are really only okay when it's an expert in the field who has already been published in a WP:RS. Prince of Canada t | c 08:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It is a third party. That is why it's inputs are accepted into forming law of the land. Surely if Indian legislature recognizes it, it must be reliable. Do you know much about the NMC? Do you know that it is included within the constitution of India? I suggest [this link] I appreciate your inputs and the fact that you discuss. Recordfreenow (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not a third party. The NMC published its results, that makes it a primary source. Please re-read WP:RS before continuing this. Prince of Canada t | c 08:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see where the confusion lies. Yes it does have original research but even though the report is primary source in it's nature. It is: a)extremely reliable, as it is considered the status of a "specialist" recognized by the government. b) The report reflects towards are investigative effort (an inquiry) into events that have taken place - namingly the Christmas 2007 violence. Numerous news article reported it as an initial source and then the commission enquiry was ordred. c) It is not reflective or any personal experiences of a wikipedia editor, which I believe is the spirit and intent of WP:OR Recordfreenow (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no confusion; the report is not a reliable third-party source. If the report has been covered in the news, then it is news articles (web or newspaper) that should be cited, not the primary source. Prince of Canada t | c 09:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That's what I am explaining. Even the news articles are publishing original information. "Violence killed 8 people". This report is only an investigation into the events. Even if there are portions in the report primary, they are a reliable primary. This article is not similar to discussing laws of Physics. It is similar to reference of [UN report] in Rwandan GenocideRecordfreenow (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Prince Of Canada: The NCM is the primary source, but it seems to me the NCM is an acceptable primary source precisely because it is an established expert in the field, whose work has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Vvarkey jibber-jabber 11:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, as I have read more of the policy, it is clear that NCM is not an original research as per WP:OR. It is a RS precisely because from the editor's perspective it is being referred. BTW Vvarkey... nice signature for someone who always forgets to sign :)Recordfreenow (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.hinduonnet.com/edu/2001/10/30/stories/2001103000070202.htm Is `juggernaut' derived from Lord Jagannath?
  2. ^ A Narrative of the Mission to Orissa: (the Site of the Temple of Jugurnath): Supported by the New Connexion of General Baptists in England By Amos Sutton, Published by David Marks for the Free-will Baptist Connexion, 1833
  3. ^ http://digilib.bu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2144/682/hinduismandchris00bachuoft.txt?sequence=1 HINDUISM AND CHRISTIANITY ORISSA: A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE COUNTRY. RELIGION, MANNERS AND CUSTOMS, OF THE HINDUS, AN ACCOUNT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE AMERICAN FREEWILL BAPTIST MISSION IN NORTHERN ORISSA. BY 0. R. BACHELER, M. D. BOSTON,GEO. C. RAND & AVERT. 1856
  4. ^ http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?artid=UbAgxgaDmnc=&title=Dark portents in Orissa&type=Article
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religious_violence_in_Odisha/Archive_1&oldid=1137120618"