Talk:Religious violence in Odisha/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RfC: Is article section on National Commission for Minorities accurately describing the report findings?

Is the current version describing the NCM report within the article accurately describing the report or should it be restored to an earlier version with citations, such as [this one]?

The earlier version is mere copy paste of POV sections of the Report. NMC is a non-Hindu body with the task of protecting the minorities. Its role is slanted. It is not the Supreme Court of India.

Further, the Page is practically made up of copy paste from the NMC , a POV agency that is not taken seriously in India. The other side's version is not made available to balance POV. I do not find the current version differing from the Report anywhere, except in avoiding large scale unnecessary copy-paste. Total reliance on the NMC Report to push a POV is ridiculous.

Jobxavier (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Recordfreenow is completely correct, jobxavier is at fault as well as everyone else. You have all posted non-neutral content and I am going to ask someone to protect the page permamnently unless this stops. —Sunday 01:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the Article be protected till re-written by a neutral editor. Jobxavier (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The request for comment is on the current status of the ill-written, uncited and grossly misrepresented summary of the NMC. This needs to be commented. 18:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recordfreenow (talk • contribs)

Half the Article is only POV quotes from the NMC Report. We might do so with the HRW Report also. Also material from AICC site. This was how the Article was originally written and posted. Has nobody heard of NPOV? Jobxavier (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Begging a case but not providing any evidence. Editor is requested to be constructive. How do you support the current version of NCM report without any citations? As of now it is just your impression of the facts. Recordfreenow (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Conversion Violence

Orissa Violence is anti-conversion violence. Christians outside KHandmal are not attacked. In Khandmal, wide spread illegal conversion is occurring. Non-convert tribals are protesting it. The Page ought to be moved to 'Anti-conversion stir in Orissa' Jobxavier (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So are you stating that there is violence against the Christians because of the alleged conversion issue? That is what the newspapers around the world are saying... Recordfreenow (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, it's an inappropriate title. The question of specific motivation is best left for the article itself. I note User:Jobxavier has now twice moved Anti-Christian violence in India without discussion and to advance POV positions. Gabrielthursday (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure but I want to know what this editor wants to include within the article. Until now have not received any constructive dicussions. Only complaints. Recordfreenow (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No reliable report of conversion is seen from anywhere. It seems to have been only senseless murder and rape of Christians. But it is nothing new to the Divine Faith. The Church will withstand it all and prosper. Honest skeptic (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected request

{{editprotected}} The current version of the article is extreme POV. The current version describing the NCM report within the article not accurately describing the report or should be restored to an earlier version with citations, such as [this one] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recordfreenow (talk • contribs)

Editprotected requests are not for content control. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So what is supposed to be done in case of a protected article that is POV? Recordfreenow (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is not protected. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Disscussion items

• Since the protection is to discuss. I would like user JobXavier to state the points within the article that are having a POV issue. This editor MUST state why it is a POV and what needs to change.
• Second, This editor MUST state which aspects of violence against Hindus, that was provided with reliable sources, has NOT been included.

Recordfreenow (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No violence has been reported against Hindus. It has all been one-sided genocide. Even Radio Vatican has reported so. Honest skeptic (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I hope you are being sarcastic. Killing of Swami whatshisname is not violence against Hindus? And Radio Vatican is such an unbiased source. 121.247.48.118 (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers.

I've done my best to try and make a dialogue happen here, but I have to recognize when my efforts are futile. I wish you all the best, and I hope all of you are able to work together to reach NPOV truth. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up. That is all i can say. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, it just doesn't happen the way you would like it to. Gabrielthursday (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

True. PoC i hope you have not given up yet. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried not so hard as POC, but I have tried long enough. He just withstood it longer. Realize please that if you comtinue this ridiculous non-neutral battles, this might go to ArbCom, and if it goes to ArbCom, some of you will probably be banned for a long period. Let that sluice run through your heads. All the best to all of you. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 11:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the rewrite? I was under the impression it was proceeding. But looking at the sandbox, it looks like it's been abandoned? If so, with everyone jumping ship, this should probably go to ArbCom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 09:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a question of garnering donations from America and Europe with sob stories of anti-Christian violence, involved in the large number of articles being posted on anti-Christian violence in India, with seperate articles for each and every incident for whatever reason on anyone bearing a seemingly Christian name. This is good for India also because it brings in foreign direct investment. I have therefore, decided not to induce any more NPOV in this and similar articles because they are only belly-filling articles; and as such deserve sympathy. Jobxavier (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Jobxavier - Thanks for your self-serving explanation, I think you also deserve sympathy. You wasted probably 3 or 4 other peoples time by just disputing and not providing any meaningful answers. Please read the several times different users have REQUESTED you to clarify what SPECIFICALLY you find objectionable, and you in turn have either not responded or just ranted (allow me SIR). Is that constructive collaboration? ADMINS on wikipedia - I am enthusiastic about contributing to wikipedia but only in a collaborative atmosphere. I will also note existing policies are not good enough to deal with what is happening here. pk1122 10:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Its sad to see sensationalization take precedence over reporting the facts. It takes two to tango and certainly though JobXavier may have edited in a peculiar fashion, other people are not blameless. We need to see whats happening and report on it. That's Wikipedia.Pectore^talk 23:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

One tends to agree with user Pectore. The photo of the burnt girl was perhaps, too much for no useful purpose. There seems to have been much discussion on it. Honest skeptic (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, whatever, I'm only involved because I took responsibility for mediation cabal. Anyway, I think that what this article really needs is a rewrite — from someone who has experience with this type of article and can fix it up. I suggest either Blofeld or Editorofthewiki, two friends of mine. Both are great at writing foreign US articles. Pick one! —Ceranthor^(Sing) 01:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this needs re-writing, removing all the anti-Christian [pro-Hindu] POV. The article looks like an anti-Christian article. Innocent editor (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ceranthor - Since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jobxavier proves what Jobxavier, Innocent Editor, Honest Skeptic were upto....do you really think this needs a rewrite? I think the authors that were originally writing this should go ahead and finish up this article. Any and all constructive objections can be resolved within the framework of WP policy, ofcourse made challenging by the unscrupulous edits of a few. pk1122 14:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Total Damage

This section is attributed to a joint statement by Archbishop Vincent Concessao, Archbishop of Delhi, Dr John Dayal, Secretary General, All India Christian Council, Dr. Valson Thampu, Principal, St Stephen's College, Delhi, representing Christian communities of India at the NIC, according to the Link. This may not therefore be NPOV. Editors might use a more NPOV source. It is otherwise evident that the Christian minority has been very mercilessly harmed. The photograph of the poor girl speaks volumes. Apprentice minister (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The persons who made the statement are respected and trusted leaders of Christians. Their version is the correct one and needs no further proof. Since the NIC has not refuted the statement, we might describe it as the NIC statement even. A few more photos might be good. We might try the Evangelist/Christian sites for them. Innocent editor (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

googlean: Who removed this very important Section earlier? The AICC is a very reliable source, it being a Christian Council. That no Hindu suffered might also be mentioned, since AICC does not say Hindus were affected in any way. The nun herself said in her Complaint that only one person raped her; but she was under trauma then and might have forgotten the number of times and men. Is it not sad that of the 116000 Christians in Khandmal, 50000 exactly were left homeless? Round figures like 50000, 4400,300,18000 etc may be slightly corrected upwards like 50999, 4499,399,18999 etc to make it more acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.103.153 (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there no sympathy for hindus?

Vatican City, Human Rights Watch, Italy's foreign ministry, United states Commission on International Religious Freedom, European Union, ALL have condemned violence against Christians, Not a single organization has condemned violence by Christians against Hindus. Is there no one who sheds tears at the death of a Hindu? Such biased condemnation brands all the above including HRW (which I till today thought of as neutral) as Christian supporting outfits. When will these outfits learn that it is the the death of a HUMAN that matters not just the death of people who purportedly follow your religion? For my part I am a humanist and I condemn both the death of Hindus and Christians 121.247.48.118 (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? Pectore^talk 15:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with user Pectore. The IP address is only trying to disrupt by being pro-Hindu. This is not good WP. Responsible Catholic and Christian writers like Googlean, Vvarkey, Recordfree etc have been trying to project the correct version of things here. I feel that the IP address user is only a Hindu. The IP address must be warned for being disruptive by trying to project a pro-Hindu viewpoint. Hindu majority has attacked Christian minority. The IP user should know that at least in WP, Christians decide things. Innocent editor (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not discuss the editors, let us discuss the article. thanks - --vvarkey (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right. However, the sincere contribution of those editors like yourself in projecting and protecting the Christian side of the Violence correctly must be appreciated. I feel that disruptive Hindus must be shown that at least in WP, Christians decide things. We managed to get Job Xavier, Bharat Veer and similar Hindus blocked permanently. Innocent editor (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Innocent Editor, you say a bunch of things that are totally out of sync.

1. Being pro Hindu != disruption
2. Christians do not decide things on Wikipedia, Buddhists do. No but seriously, an educated, sourced, consensus does. Christians may be all of the three or none of the three.
3. You are really no different than JX if you hold such despicable prejudices toward Hindus
4. Bharatveer is hardly disruptive, and has not been permablocked.
5. Disruptiveness is not endemic to any faith, though truth may be.

Thank you.Pectore^talk 23:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors, i advise not wasting your time on this anymore. There are many socks operating. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jobxavier Recordfreenow (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Pectore....Innocent Editor is a sock as the above link confirms. pk1122 (talk) , 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Noted. This is peculiar, thats all I have to say.Pectore^talk 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nun's rape

Nun's rape is not yet established and its investigation is still ongoing. The article needs to reflect that fact. Earlier it was written in such a manner that it has already been established. -Bharatveer (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, Odissa today is not a reliable source as it is a regional daily influenced by the local government, which has been strongly opposing a Federal/central government enquiry. If you have other sources corraborating your comment, feel free to discuss. Thanks, Recordfreenow (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, check the following links of news that confirms nuns rape. Much better sources than Odissa Today.

• The Hindu
• BBC South Asia
• Hindustan Times

Recordfreenow (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please give valid reason why Odisha today is not RS.-Bharatveer (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Regional sources are fine. Looking at the site, there is absolutely no reason to discredit the site as a reliable source, unless you are opposed to its view, which is obviously not a reason to term it a non-RS.Pectore^talk 04:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss before you remove references like that.-Bharatveer (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bharatveer, you just undid a large number of my changes, because you object to 1 of them. I am going to assume it was done in good faith, so will redo at least my other changes. But going fwd, please amend the text if you object to 1 change in a series, rather than undoing all the edits. Also, you can usually undo just 1 edit. About the blog ref you took issue with, i had removed the following text: "He was regularly receiving death threats and the last threat letter had been submitted to the Police only the day before the murder." Can you give me the reason you put this back? Where is it ref'd from? there is only a commented ref to an unacceptable blog. Cheers - --vvarkey (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bharatveer, I'm moving this text you added to the article here (I don't want to delete it outright:

Swami had earlier demanded a high level probe into illegal beef trading in Kandhamal. VHP had also called for Kandhamal bandh over this issue. In protest against the attack and illegal beef trading, Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati demanded action against the accused.

The reason I moved it is you placed it in the middle of chronological events. Please put it back in a more appropriate place. personally, i think it may be better in the article on the Swami. Thanks. --vvarkey (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User:varkey, It was placed correctly.This happened during the december violence.

I request you to move it back.-Bharatveer (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Bharatveer (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

From the ref: Swami demanded a high level probe into illegal beef trading in Kandhamal. VHP has also called Kandhamal bandh on Wednesday over this issue. The article is dated 8/24/2008. Which Wednesday is being referred to? BTW, the article is quite badly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 13:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am ambivalent to whether you even mention the rape incident or not. However, you are clearly trying to indicate that rape may not have happened by using the SFL examination of the clothes. Did you read the other articles I am referring to? Did you read that medical reports confirm rape? Then what purpose are you trying to serve by including the SFL examination of the report? Either you remove the entire mention of rape details, or else don't misinform. That's all I have to say. Recordfreenow (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bharatveer: again for the 3rd time now: "He was regularly receiving death threats and the last threat letter had been submitted to the Police only the day before the murder." Can you give me the reason you put this back? There is no reliable ref. Please delete it. --vvarkey (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Article purpose

What is the purpose of this article? Please explain. Is it to report facts. If so, wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't want to just have a POV pushing and building a case against Indians and Hindus.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to describe the communal/religious violence that has taken place in the state of Orissa. It is not building any case unless the writing is on the wall. If you have specific objections, please discuss. Recordfreenow (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Shyam Sundar is being disruptive. This is a Christian matter. Hindus need not interfere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.103.153 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To the anonymous user above - please log in and post your comments. Please do not bring religion comically in here, no one cares here. Shyam Sunder raised a valid point that was answered by Recordfreenow. Also please note other users on this page have done senseless things and got blocked, one of them was to post messages using several different id's to show (falsify) support for their POV. --Pk1122 (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

116.68.103.153 is a sock of banner user User:Jobxavier , see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jobxavier . It will be interesting to find who is Pk1122 too :) -- Tinu Cherian - 08:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Tinu Cherian - I figured as much, what the anonymous user was upto. The thing that frustrates me here is anyone can post something essentially derailing the sincere efforts of some user to clean up the articles and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to stop it. Oops sorry forgot to log in (guilty of it myself).....here you go.--Pk1122 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, firstly, recordfreenow asked the same question at Shyam Sundar’s created pov article and answered by latter. Soon after Shyam Sundar asked the same question at this article and answered the same answer by recordfreenow. Lol :) --Googlean ^Results 10:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting. Seems like Shyam wants to take revenge on recordfree for questioning that article purpose. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, & got the same humored reply as well. --Googlean ^Results 11:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't sop laughing at all. One of the funniest thing i ever seen in here. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol. :) Why dont everybody stick to building the encyclopedia ? What is factual should have a place in wikipedia whther it is 'pro' your religion or 'anti' your religion. I am strongly in favour of things like Goa Inquisition being on WP as it was factually true. I dont care whether it is antiX or pro X. Fact is a fact and deserves a place in WP -- Tinu Cherian - 10:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said.--SkyWalker (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so you guys know, I am not the user Shyamsunder....I am pk1122. Now those interested can get back to the article. I dont believe in creating false support for a viewpoint by logging in as different users. I try to login as pk1122 90% of the time. --Pk1122 (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Odishatoday -WP:RS

Instead of blind reverts of cited sources, User:Tinu Cherian & user:googlean Please give reason why odishatoday is not WP:RS.-Bharatveer (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#odishatoday.com. --Googlean ^Results 10:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bharatveer , I request you to NOT to continue POV pushes to wikipedia. Here you have removed a reliable source like ndtv.com ( one of the leading tv channels in India) and added odishatoday.com as source which cannot be considered as neutral. You have noticed that I havent even removed the content "illegal beef trade " ( though pov from ur side) but removed only the source to odishatoday.com and added a request for a Reliable source. I dont see any other articles expect one linking to the your said site ( see Special:LinkSearch/*.odishatoday.com ) in Wikipedia .The site seems to be Pro BJP and Orissa government ( a coalition government with BJP) . Just like I would STRONGLY object any pro-church sites linking to this article as sources, I am objecting the use of odishatoday.com with the same reasons that it may be biased . If you feel that I am not neutral in this regard, you are welcome to consult any neutral admin or report to ANI or dispute resolution . Also just letting you know that you have already crossed 3RR for Religious violence in Orissa today. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User tinu, Please stop making senseless allegation. You know very well that I have not committed 3RR. See edit_diff@10:12 (This "revert" (related to sister's alleged rape) was for undoing removal of a "cited" source. See edit_diff@10:47.This revert was for undoing your senseless deletion of a cited source. As these two reverts were for two different sources, I dont understand how I committed 3RR. Please explain your allegation. Please also explain how you "concluded" that Odishatoday is not WP:RS.-Bharatveer (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Other part of this discussion can be found in here and here. --Googlean ^Results 05:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Googlean , you are deleting referenced info now. if you see any weasel words, you can add tags.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop pushing your pov, & false? edit summary. Pl explain me which TOI link are you referring to beef trade and which ref shows the term illegal? --Googlean ^Results 07:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You too . See what you have deleted first(November2008 violence). Regarding Odishatoday, the discussion is on-going, you cannot take that as an excuse to remove them.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "illegal" , Are you not seeing the title "'42,000 converted, only two followed law' " ;??-Bharatveer (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to correct only the term illegal, you may go ahead, but please stop pushing your pov through the shadow of other edits. Pls stop. --Googlean ^Results 07:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop pushing povs yourself googlean and please be Civil.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

From this Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer it is blatently evident who is uncivil, edit warring and POV pushing -- Tinu Cherian - 12:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration said nothing about POV-pushing, but certainly it takes two to tango.Pectore^talk 21:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Pectore - I disagree with your observation about Bharatveer apropos the above. Edit-warring is pretty much driven by POV pushing. However what might be a valid point is, Bharatveer doing that in the past doesn't mean he is doing it now as well.--Pk1122 (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Responses"

We don't find such a section on basically any other page indicating violence between different groups. Yes, everyone and their mother condemned the violence. That is sort of what normal human beings do, since we're all sickened by violence. It serves no purpose in the article.Pectore^talk 20:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. These sections help readers gauge the international (or local) reaction to the event being discussed in the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Claims of Christian on Hindu Violence

I don't know if there is Christian-based violence or not but the material being added does not match any simple refernce check. For example

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/tripura/terrorist_outfits/Attf.htm

The NLFT group is 90% hindu, the naga group appears to be a socialist ethnic group with no religious identification at all, and the BBC quote offered regarding the murder of Pradhana specifically says that Hindu activists, not the media, claim that there was a 'Christian Maoist nexus'. Why would Christians join up with atheist Maoists? I'm not saying it is impossible, but someone needs to provide a source and citation per the rules of wikipedia. When sources such as the BBC say that only the Hindu radicals claimed there was a nexus then that source needs to be contradicted with another reliable source, preferably a secondary source. It is really sad to watch propagandists work this article over all the time. Sandwich Eater (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

Hello. PrinceOfCanada (talk · contribs) approached me a few days ago to help settle the POV issues in the article by expanding it and improving the writing and sourcing. I have since watched the article and the discussions about the information, and I'm not particularly excited to step into a hornet's nest, but I believe that thorough research may often stave off edit wars. So, ever the optimist, I will give it a try.

I am unfamiliar with this conflict. This may be advantageous, as I am approaching it with neutrality. However, it makes it a little more difficult for me to get caught up to speed. I noticed that at least one editor claims that some sources have been removed during the many reverts. If you would, please, list the sources that were used that you think should be in the article, and I can judge if they are reliable, or if I will use them. I will do some of my own research, as I have access to a university library, and I may neglect some of the sources previously used for stronger ones.

In the past I have rewritten articles completely top to bottom. I don't know if I can do that with this one, but let me see. It will take me a bit to complete this, based on what I have read and where I am in my edits. It may take a couple weeks. I have created a sandbox for the rewrite. You can watch my progress, but I respectfully request that major revisions to the article sandbox be withheld until I ask for input. When I rewrite, it's a bit like sausage. It ain't too pretty until it looks pretty. That means that one view may be in the article until I can get to another view. Spelling and grammar mistakes may be seen, but I constantly copy edit my own stuff, so have faith. It will get there.

Previously removed sources

• Source 1
• Source 2
• Source 3

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

History of Forced Conversions in Goa?

There is a section called "History of Forced Conversions" in the article. It talks about the Portugese in Goa and the British in India, neither of which have any connection to this article, which is about Religious Violence in Orissa. This seems more an attempt to vandalize the article and neutralize the topics on atrocities committed in Orissa by claiming atrocities elsewhere. Lets keep on topic shall we...this section shall be removed as it has no connection with the article. --Friedricer (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian Terroism in India?

This is another section which has no connection to this article. Again the purpose seems to be here to weaken the article or neutralize any reports of atrocities in Orissa, by diverting attention to a nonsense section which has no connection to the article or the region of Orissa. This section shall be removed due to having no connection to this article.--Friedricer (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Maoist-Christian Nexus

This article from Rediff contains a statement by one of the Maoist leaders. There, he admits that many of his supporters in Orissa come from the Christian community. Hokie Tech (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Vigourous distortion by media

I'm not sure if this section and the "Summary of the chain of events before the riots" were meant to be together or not, but the Summary section cites no sources and the "Vigorous Distortion" section seems to be an editorial and also lacks any citations. The Summary section should be updated with sources, while the "Distortion" section, due to its editorial nature, would probably be better of being removed unless citations can be provided. Steve1davis (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be thoroughly revised

This article reads like it was directly copied out of a Hindu extremist pamphlet. Someone with extensive knowledge of religious conflict in Orissa and someone who has no ideological stake in this needs to rewrite this to meet Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.139.105 (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a Hindu and was going to the relief camp with some vegetables and was arrested by the police.(Dt.30.08.2008)

August 2008 violence

Subsection says that three Christians were arrested, but Maoists mailed odd letter. Need to connect the dots a bit better between Maoists and Christians IMO. Sounds irrational without that connection. Student7 (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring

An editor pointed out that we don't have much material (almost nothing) after 2008, except maybe a trial. To avoid that (temporarily, I assume), I integrated material at the bottom into "2008 violence."

The subtitle "Continued violence" seems more of an excuse to break off the long section, rather than anything helpful to the reader. Needs more restructuring, I think. And later material, if any. Student7 (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Kandhamal Riots

Is a bit off. How exactly can a Maoist be a christian? And even one of the sources which says "It is a fact that Christians form the majority in our organisation" has the same guy saying " Panda, however, added that the rebel outfit did not have any religious convictions or allegiances." This contradiction leads me to question the accuracy of the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Christians killed Laxmanananda [1] and while the Maoist ideology is inherently secular in some sense, they are political allies of the Christians. Its simple.Pectore^talk 01:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Only because the accused murderers of Laxmananda happen to be christians, does not imply that christian community as a whole killed [or wanted to kill] the Swami. They are members of the Maoist group and they killed him (or being accused of killing him) on the orders of the Maoist leader not the church/christian leaders. Similarily if a muslim employee, on the orders of his hindu boss kills a hindu guy , does that mean it is a religious violence? I would say its not. This whole concept of one converting ideological issue into communal issue is wrong and not suitable to be included in an encyclopedia.ScitDei (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Christians refers to people that adhere to the religion of Christianity. Given the communal atmosphere in Odisha, your analogy is extremely flawed. The Maoists on multiple occasions mentioned their distaste for the Swami's Hindu revivalism projects among the tribals.Pectore^talk 18:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. (a) Christians are those who follow Christ. (b) My analogy maybe flawed and (c) Maoist may have been against the Swami's attempts. I even agree that there may be some Christians in the Maoist organisation. But that does not give us the liberty to say that Christians are behind Swamiji's murder. The Maoist are actually behind the Swamiji's killing. And including the former in the encyclopedia is not right. I hope I have expressed my point better now.ScitDei (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)