Talk:Weeping crucifix in Mumbai

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice enough! FWIW, this has been covered in a few journals and books as well; will add them, when I get some time :-).

∯WBG^converse 18:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Title

I am not sure what the title should be, but the current one is misleading. Should be Mumbai church miracle or something like that. Real Jesus wasnt involved here. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, I don't think title is misleading. It's perfect to represent the alleged miracle and redirect is coming from 2012 Jesus water miracle. Also, see Hindu milk miracle. Hindu Gods weren't involved here too. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Harshil169 since I assume you have done a lot of reading of the sources, what does the mainstream media refer the incident as ? Please provide evidence for the WP:COMMONNAME --DBigXrayᗙ 17:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray There are different names in the news articles like Weeping statue of Jesus (this already exists on wiki), Holy water miracle (this is not even case as the water was sewage's water). Hence, I thought neutral name like this should be made as heading. You can suggest another heading. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Harshil169 So you agree that you made up the current title. Please understand that this amounts to WP:OR. We have to use the title that is commonly used already or something close to what other mainstream sources are using. Can you please list the titles below along with the sources link that uses it and then we can decide on a more appropriate title and rename this.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with DBigXray, this is not a race.User:Harshil169 every article is meant with hidden agenda for religion.This is not a race that if Hindu superstitions like Hindu milk miracle are present in so vast area, then a christian counterpart must exist. This is no race or comparison in Christians and Hindus. Your conparison of article with Hindu milk miracle shows your thought process of comparing with Hiduism. And as DBigXray stated, which seems logical that there is no mentioning of Jesus in the said article. So stop with these made up names. And edit this with proper name otherwise this article will be nominated for deletion .Edward Zigma (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Edward Zigma, if you’ve proof that I’m spreading hidden agenda, as you said in your comment, then present it here. Comment on content, don’t go personal by accusing someone. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The one page by the editor named temple attack in delhi, which was written with direct quotes such as "Muslims attacking temples", is already deleted. Now another page wich is poor written and with malice intention is again here. Edward Zigma (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• User:Harshil169 Please ignore the personal attacks above and focus on the topic. There is a pyramid image on my talk page for this, you should check it out. User:Edward Zigma we are only discussing the title here. At this point of time I am not disputing if this article needs to be deleted or not, so please do not take the discussion off the tracks. User:Harshil169 As I requested above, Please list the names that reliable sources are using. We will have to choose something from among them. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray I know about that pyramid. However, this isn’t first time when this editor did ad hominem on me. All references are given in article. And give me some time for improvement. If possible then include Winged Blades of Godric in discussion too. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Harshil169 Please take your time. A list of the titles used by reliable sources along with the link here, will help all of us to decide sooner.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Please suggest another title. This title is not been given on any source. Simply, wheeping statue is given and that already exists on the Wiki. Try to reach on consensus before moving. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile I have nominated above as time was running out, we can continue the discussion on title. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Dharmadhyaksha, User:Path slopu and User:Kautilya3 any suggestions for a better title ? --DBigXrayᗙ 08:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, boy. The real miracle is that Edamaraku wasn't slapped with "sedition charges". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Sedition? In my knowledge, it was blasphemy. However, both are draconian. - Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Harshil169, in case you missed, this was User:Kautilya3 making a sarcastic comment on the current BJP government's misuse of sedition. In any case lets focus on the title. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray:I don't agree with this title, because it seems misleading. Since Jesus Christ had several miracles related to water such as Jesus walking on water, Turning water into wine this title may mislead editors search for this. So, it had better changing the title. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 13:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

How about Weeping Christ hoax in Mumbai? [1]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, This title seems nice. PATH SLOPU 13:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this discussion seems as a conflict between different ideologies outside Wikipedia such as religion, politics. Editors should respect the collective wisdom and strive for stopping any kind of aspect of Clash of Civilizations in our editing (AWWDCCW). Don't try to introduce religion/politics/ideologies/ in discussions. Its my opinion. Opposing opinions are welcomed. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 13:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray, Kautilya3, and Harshil169: I think the the article slightly violates NPOV policy, but it can be easily fixed by changing the writing style in some sentences. PATH SLOPU 14:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• As far as I know, there are many miracles involving Jesus and water (i.e. Jesus turning water into wine, which is in the Bible). Why not name the title: Jesus water miracle in Mumbai? It adds the location and removes the vagueness. MX (✉ • ✎) 14:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  MX, But please notice that it wasn't a miracle, it was a fake one or hoax. Regards. PATH SLOPU 14:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Path slopu: How about Jesus water miracle hoax in Mumbai? MX (✉ • ✎) 14:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggested titles

I'm creating a list of suggested titles. You also can add new ones and select a appropriate one after discussion.--PATH SLOPU 14:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Weeping Christ hoax in Mumbai

• Jesus water miracle hoax in Mumbai

• Jesus water miracle in Mumbai

• Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai

@MX and Path slopu: It was obviously hoax but people considered it as ‘miracle’ and see Ganesha drinking milk miracle. This was too hoax but people claimed as miracle, so, name is given as miracle as per popular convention. In my opinion, title ‘Jesus water miracle in Mumbai’ will be appropriate. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe just an objective neutral title without "hoax" or "miracle", like Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai? When I did a search on that phrase, got lots of hits on the incident. Schazjmd (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd, Now I think that hoax doesn't need to be in the title. It might need better coverage in the LEAD. (from here) PATH SLOPU 01:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a better word for what happened than "hoax"? I didn't find the term used in reliable sources on this story, but they did use "debunked". To me, "hoax" implies deliberate deceit, and that didn't seem to be an element in this instance, just a lot of credulous superstitious people. Schazjmd (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Schazjmd and Path slopu:, Keep hoax or miracle out of the title. Keep it simple. "Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai" will do. In lead states what the "independent, reliable source" and dont add your own opinion or anyone opinion about whether it is a miracle or not. You can add a section in the article to indicates WP:DUEWEIGHT - a balance view of the subject but both views need to be supported by independent reliable sources (multiple sources) and pls bear in mind, all content need to be written in neutral point of view. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CASSIOPEIA ‎ (talk • contribs) 18:20, October 9, 2019 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with User:CASSIOPEIA above. Hoax or miracle are POV words, and should be avoid if the reliable sources dont use them. Among the listed titles, I find "Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai" to be most appropriate. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I would’ve supported your idea. In fact, initially, I thought same name but see Weeping statue. In this article, it’s mostly about tears weeping from eyes of marry and Jesus. Your suggested name would be ambiguous about tears and water leaking from foot. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 09:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169 you make a valid point. As I originally suggested, let's make a list of source and what name they used to refer to the incident. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169 It is your opinion. The title suggested does not indicate where the weeping originated from. Dont add POV in this. Keep it simple. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA, DBigXray, Harshil169, Schazjmd, and Barkeep49: I agree with your opinion on avoiding hoax from the title. I am withdrawing my previous opinion for adding hoax in the title. Regards.-PATH SLOPU 14:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Me too. So, Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai is what we are ending up with. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support@Kautilya3, CASSIOPEIA, DBigXray, Harshil169, Schazjmd, and Barkeep49:We can select the above mentioned name (Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai)--PATH SLOPU 01:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  While this wasn't a formal move discussion I see no reason to think the move controversial and have gone ahead and moved it to Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai leaving behind the redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, Thank you for moving. Shall we close this? PATH SLOPU 01:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

No, PathSlopu, I have undid your close as premature. Although Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai is a better title than the last one, I am yet to see source supporting that title. We should consider the current move as a temporary move until a stable title is decided per WP:CONSENSUS. If you have sources supporting a particular title please produce them here. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Where is it located...

Article mentions nothing whereabouts this statue is located except in Mumbai.. Might be helpful to a reader. It is located: On the grounds of the Infant Jesus Chapel - इन्फेंट जीसस चैपल Marve Rd, Besides Nazrene Apartments, Malad, Kharodi Village, Malad West, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400095 near LatLong: 19.1969534,72.8178217 46.233.112.119 (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

"Miracle"

I've cleaned up this article which was in a very sorry state for a recent DYK. Is the epithet of "miracle" granted by anyone more credible than some tourists collecting filthy water? No? I didn't think so. Why is this even on the front page? Elizium23 (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"Miracle" by Catholic authorities is explicitly denied in the sources please stop adding it back in, @Harshil169: Elizium23 (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169 is exhibiting WP:OWNership of this article. It is not good for someone to defend false assertions in an article such as this. There are WP:BLP issues involved. Elizium23 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Why can’t you see the source in aftermath section? It is mentioned in article that archbishop of Mumbai demanded apologies from Sanal. [2][3][4]Don’t do disruptive editing.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

So you admit that the archbishop never called it a "miracle"? Elizium23 (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

When did I say archbishop called it miracle. I had said several local catholic organisations called it miracle, some refused it even. Give me time, I’ll present sources for it. But this is true that they asked for apology. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what Erlich, Radio Utopia: Postwar Audio Documentary in the Public Interest a 2011 source, has to do with this article? Elizium23 (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I am skeptical, extremely skeptical, that Edamaruku was being asked to apologize for conducting a scientific evaluation of the situation. Extremely skeptical. The tabloids and the rationalist blogs aren't going to say if he said something beyond the pale about religious belief. I suspect there is more to this story than a rationalist's scientific investigation. Elizium23 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The sources (unsurprising for tabloids) are confused on this point, but it appears that the auxiliary bishop of Mumbai was the one communicating and asking for an apology (not demanding it) and not the archbishop himself. Elizium23 (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It is also highly misleading in that the Archdiocese is not the one who filed charges against him. I am not sure how they could have the power to drop the charges upon his apology, but they aren't the ones in the legal battle in the first place, it's some Indian Catholic watchdog, counterpart to the Catholic League. Elizium23 (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Elizium23: That's your problem that you don't want to believe the source and skeptic about it but I don't care about it. I just care what is written in reliable sources. Don't label The Sunday Indian, Firstpost and Thre guardian as tabloid just because you don't trust the news; they're reliable sources as per consensus in India based articles. Also, here is another source (another one) in which Sanal got several warnings from member in live TV debates to demand apology. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually I believe that I am correct do be skeptical of these sources, because none of them can agree who issued the "demands" or were they "requests" for an apology from Edamaruku? Thesundayindian.com claims: Father Augustine Palett, the priest of Our Lady of Velankanni Church, and the Association of Concerned Catholics (AOCC) demanded that Sanal apologise. this is the first time I've heard directly about Father Augustine. There was another source claiming that Father was calling it a holy water miracle, which is extremely out-of-character for a clergyman, as I outlined above. These are extraordinary claims, and this is an application of WP:BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting: During the subsequent TV discussions in Delhi and Mumbai, Sanal accused the Catholic Church of "miracle mongering" this would be a good reason for him to be accused of blasphemy (and requested to apologise): obviously it's not for his line of scientific inquiry but defamation of Catholic clergy/faithful. Elizium23 (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't do unpublished sunthesis of sources. Does source say that he was subjected to FIRs after calling Church 'anti-science'? NO. And only one source says that he made fun, not all WP:RS. Don't do original research that what can be good reson or not. You can give it due weight in aftermath section but don't write that he was subjected to blasphemy due to calling church as anti-science. He recieved threats earlier from many groups.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 00:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It is very intriguing that you wish to cover up the fact that he mocked the church, which would be a very good explanation for blasphemy charges, rather than "conducting a scientific experiment" which is absurd on its face. ABSURD. YOU are the one making WP:SYNTH and connecting his investigation with the blasphemy, which have no real connection at all. YOU are the one WP:OWNing this article so that others may not introduce well-sourced information. Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

STOP DOING PERSONAL ATTACKS. I never stopped you from covering up the fact but source doesn't say that he was accused of blasphemy after that fun. What I had written is you should give due weight that he made fun. How many sources tell that he made fun? only 1. and how many sources tell that he was subjected to blasphemy? plenty. Keep NPOV in mind and don't give too much weight to christian pov.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 00:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m pinging @DBigXray, Kautilya3, Path Slopu, and Winged Blades of Godric: for dispute resolution. Is there any need to find reason that why Sanal was subjected to FIRs? If RS didn’t do it then why should we find ‘good reason’?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 00:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You might need to take it to WP:DRN. It is not at all clear to me what you guys are arguing about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Here user is saying that Sanal had blasphemy due to mockery of POP and so called holy figures of catholic christianity which is absent in the RS and this user says that BBC is not reliable. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)User:Harshil169 and Elizium23 thanks for arguing it out on the talk page. you two are actively involved in reverting so you might be able to make sense of it, but this discussion is confusing for the rest of us (as @Kautilya3: also noted). I have spent time in reading the entire thread, and I feel that there are several points of disagreement. May I request you (any of you 2) to start separate threads for every point of disagreement and mention your supported version of the text for the article along with sources supporting your point of view. In the meantime, I would request both of you not to do any more edits into the article. Elizium has noted in his userspage that he has some COI associated with a church, that may explain his strong feelings. This is another reason we should be utilizing talk page more and not edit war directly into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so regards the alleged "COI" I have disclosed: I have affiliations with the Diocese of Phoenix and the Knights of Columbus. There is no COI as regards 99.99% of articles on Wikipedia, particularly this one. "Members of a Church" are determined not to have any COI from time immemorial on Wikipedia. So please do not bring up an alleged COI here on this talk page when none exists for me. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Article Title, Type of sculpture

Several sources appear to agree that this is a crucifix, should we not update the article title and so forth, to agree with the sources? A crucifix is a particularly special type of sculpture, after all... Elizium23 (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I think "crucifix" is more precise and concise than "Jesus statue", so I've changed the title. Ham II (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I would note that I agree with this title. The last one was only a temporary one until a better title was found. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

improving article

Some thoughts on improving the article since we seem to have conflicting sources

• Where exactly did this happen. From some sources it seems to be Saint Anthony's church in Kharodi in Mumbai but others say Our Lady of Velankanni in the village of Irla in Mumbai. In fact the Kharodi one may have been a different event that happened in November 2016 while the other is in March 2012
• When did it start
• When was Sanal Edamaruku invited to investigate and when did he publish and when

Please add. --Erp (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The timeline from http://www.davidmeyercreations.com/strange-science/the-mysterious-weeping-statue-of-jesus/ (which doe not count as a reliable source since a blog) has the following

• March 2012 (and probably some time earlier) Our Lady of Velankanni church in Mumbai had a statue of Jesus (there is another source at https://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-mad-rush-to-see-jesus-miracle-1658904 and also https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Church-reacts-to-Irla-cross-incident/articleshow/12242667.cms)
• March 5, 2012 - Sanal Edamaruku was interviewed in Delhi and the event was discussed
• March 10, 2012 - the TV channel flew him to Mumbai and he investigated (or maybe his results reported https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUqhq9MuRG8&feature=relmfu)
• April 10, 2012 - FIRs were filed by Joseph Dias, general secretary of the Catholic Secular Forum (CSF) and Agnelo Fernandes, president of Maharashtra Christian Youth Forum accusing him of violating Section 295a of the Indian Penal Code

From other sources Augustine Palett seems to have been the priest of the church. btw "cross of Irla" gets a reasonable amount of hits--Erp (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The tabloid blurbs offer more heat than light; I found quite a lot of useful information in this source: A Rationalist Fights to Disprove Miracles in India (Audio file). Public Radio International. 23 November 2012. Elizium23 (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)