Talk:Goa Inquisition/Archive 1

message: As for massacres, please, have some respect for our intelligence! This is not supported by evidence or historical documents. The Inquisition kept detailed records of all ´enquiries´ and these can be consulted today. Based on historical records it is a historical certainty that Hindus and Moslems were not prosecuted by the Inquisition neither were any massacres ever committed. For those interested on a scientific approach rather then racial and religious bigotry, leave Wikipedia and consult the Britannica.
Christian converts were the focus of the inquisition. The article relies on anti-christian sources
inquistions were religious presecutions.  This one was aimed at Hindus.  It is apart Hindu history and their persecution and struggle to survive.  That is why the stub should stay.  I would have put the xtianity stub, but I thought xtians wouldn't like it and deny it. --Dangerous-Boy 07:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindus were the focus of the inquistion 

message: I'm cool with that.--Dangerous-Boy 21:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  it's all good then. 

message: The material on this page reads as if it all derives from Hindu anti-Christian polemic.  This, remember, is used in India TODAY by extremists to justify burning sleeping Australian missionaries and their families alive.  That is to say, it looks like propaganda by the group which holds all the power in modern India against a minority which has been the subject of official and unofficial violence.  So it's pretty important that whatever is said is accurate, neutral and balanced, particularly since the subject is one that tends to demonise.  Some of the article does this; much of it smells as if it had a hate-literature origin.
The general lack of balance is evident in basic things that are missing from the article.  Why did the inquisition come?  We're not really told, but we're led to suppose it was only because Xavier asked for it. (Is that the actual reason?  He was dead by then!) Why did he ask?  No answer is given to this.  Thus we can infer that the original author just wanted to link St. Francis Xavier, the apostle of the East, to atrocities, and not to explain what was happening here. Other examples are the lack of proper references for any statement; the general tendency of the article to smear the Christian faith-community; the lack of precision, and so forth.
I don't profess to know anything about the subject.  I merely enter a plea for NPOV, soon, please.  As it stands I think that this article might incite violence against a minority group.
:Actually congress holds all the power in India and they support the minorities.  St. Xavier wrote the letter.  The inquisition was installed 8 years after he died.  To top off the insult, the buried him there, and made a monument to him!  Probably should put in references later. --Dangerous-Boy 21:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs NPOV =

message: Rediff is a fine site to use.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rediff

message: He's the face of the inquisition. Don't remove the photo.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: st xavier photo

message: Added a POV notice.  The burden of proof has been unfairly attempted to be moved to those who deny the so-called "facts" presented on this page.  If genocide was committed or attempted at Goa, then the burden of proof is on those who claim this to prove it.  Otherwise, the word "genocide" should be wiped from this page.  Other changes should be made as well, such as removing the picture of Francis Xavier.  The article itself says that Francis Xavier died before the inquisition started, therefore there is no way that he could be called "the face of the inquisition".  The entire article is POV.  Atreyu81 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You entire comment is POV as well. We have enough external links and references to prove the other points.Bakaman 01:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I suggest we remove all references to the word "genocide", as there is no evidence of this occurring in the references given.  Atreyu81 00:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but the word "massacre" is mentioned in several of the refs. Hkelkar 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: the documented persecution and genocide of Goanese people is now called hate-material?Bakaman 23:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Brahmins being crucified.  I believe that.  The spanish were brutal in south america.  I don't think the portugeuse were any better.--D-Boy 21:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genocide?

message: I've protected this page to stop the edit war. Please discuss the changes on this talk page, and once a consensus has been reached let me know on my talk page and I'll unprotect it. --Tango 15:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong version protected- This version has contradictory nonsense (54 people is unsourced, there was obviously more), also its been scarred y constant vandalism by cc80's army of socks.Bakaman 17:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See meta:Wrong version. --Tango 20:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply - see Wikipedia:Protection_policy#How. Bakaman 02:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You protected the wrong verion.--D-Boy 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrong version protected.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't be protected forever....--D-Boy 06:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Won't be. So discuss! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 10:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal.  This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.
A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned.  This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts.  Please be alert for suspicious activity.  Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. DurovaCharge! 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community ban of the [[Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Joan_of_Arc_vandal|Joan of Arc vandal]] 

message: User:Bakasuprman just reverted some edits by User:212.140.128.142 with the summary "rvv banned sock troll". I can see why 212.140.128.142 is suspected of being a sock; but I don't see any bans or blocks. Has this user in fact been banned or blocked?
Also, I would urge everyone to stop referring to vandalism, because it's clear that this is a content dispute, not vandalism. It might be a good idea to remember the three-revert rule also. At this point I think it might be a good idea to seek some form of mediation or other dispute resolution; the way things are going, the page might get protected pretty soon. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 212.140.128.142 is a sock of Xandar or CC80. Rumpelstiltskin223 22:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be true, but until you get an admin to agree with you and he's blocked, I don't think it's a good idea to revert his edits for that reason. Might be a better idea to post to WP:ANI or request a checkuser. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Baka was correct in the rv.  it was blatent vandalism.--D-Boy 23:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Baka was incorrect in stating that 212.140.128.142 had been banned. He (and you) are also incorrect in calling this vandalism--it's a content dispute. Content disputes aren't vandalism. 212.140.128.142's edits might be disruptive, and he might be a sock--but this isn't vandalism. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then it is a violation of WP:POINT at leasst. He clearly has an agenda. Also, removal of referenced material (particularly the Saksena quote, which is established in my reproduction above) can be called vandalism, but you may disagree with that assessment. If you give me some hours I will get the Priolkar book.Rumpelstiltskin223 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, he's got an agenda, and I don't think he's pursuing it constructively, but that accusation could be directed at you, as well as at Baka and D-boy. It would be better if everyone could be calmer, stop accusing each other of vandalism or hate speech, and hit the revert button less often--it really won't hurt to edit more slowly. Besides, I think everyone shares the goal of finding reliable sources for everything in the article, and getting the Priolkar book should really help with that. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: Sorry Rumplestiltskin. You and your friends clearly have an agenda which you are wanting to push here, but even this book you have been waiting for, and which is clearly strongly POV does not substantiate the stuff in the article. A lot of what you quote is clearly POV opinion, and not factual. Propaganda pictures somebody has drawn supposedly inquisition tortures are commonplace, and have usually been drawn far away from the alleged incidents, by people working to an agenda. The value of such pictures is only as good as their source.
Nobody is arguing that measures introduced to suppress openly Hindu practices did not take place. There is ample evidence that such laws existed. Similarly it is very likely that orphan babies without relatives will have been brought up as Christians.
The other accusations in your quotes from this book are again suspiciously vague. We have no dates, no incidents, no numbers, no sources.
Stugff like this....
The cruelties which in the name of religion of peace and love this tribunal practised in Europe were carried to even greater excesses in India where the Inquisitors, surrounded by luxuries which could stand comparison with the regal magnificence of the great potatoes of Asia,saw with pride the Archbishop as well as the viceroy submitted to their power
and this...
"every word of theirs was a sentence of death and at their slightest anod were moved to terror the vast populations speead over the Asiatic regions, whose lived fluctuated in their hands and who on the most frivolous pretext, could be clapped for all time in teh deepest dungeons or STRANGLED or offered as food for the flames of the pyre"
 are just vague POV ranting, and contain no hard facts.
You have produced nothing to prove:
Thousands of people were killed by the inquisition. (Actual number 50)
A pogrom of Hindus took place.
Jews were massacred by the inquisition
The Bishop of the Thomas church was 'staked'
or any of the other direct claims removed from the article, many of which (by not repeating them) you already admit were clearly false.
Instead the article is full of vague allegations written up so as to give readers the impression that thousands of Hindus and Jews were tortured and killed. This is not what Wikipedia is for. the encyclopedia must be a source of provable facts. Prove them or remove the false allegations. Xandar 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Xandar, Priolkar has been reviewed in scholarly journals, and is thought to be a reliable account of the Inquistion. Like you, I'd prefer solid figures/dates, but I'm assuming that Rumpel is giving us some of the most colorful passages of the book. You might try obtaining the book yourself (if you have access to a university library), so you can verify the quotes. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And what did the single 1964 review say? If the book is a good account of the inquisition, it will contain hard facts, not just opinion or vague generalisations - such as the quotes above. These provide no basis for the accusations in Rumplestiltskin's version of the article. The fact that no hard facts seem to exist anywhere about these supposed mass killings seems a clear indication that they are legendary. A better book to look at would be Portuguese In India, The (The New Cambridge History of India) (Hardcover) This available, detailed academic source, presents an entirely different picture to that which appears in this article. It speaks of Hindus being discriminated against, but still dominating the Goan economy, and taking many top roles. I do not have the book, but as far as I can see from an Amazon.com search, there is no mention of Hindus being tortured or killed for being Hindu. Xandar 17:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Xander, rumple owned you.  take it like a man.--D-Boy 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hee! Priolkar's book is peer-reviewed as excellent so such nonsense is irrelevant. Priolkar is a top notch scholar who is completely accredited. He is an accredited professor of History in Bombay University.His book is regarded as the most authoritative work on Goa Inquisition by his peer reviewer Gerald M. Moser of Penn State University so your attempts to discredit an honest academic show how desperate a missionary would go to to white-wash the facts.Also I read that Priolkar himself is a Roman Catholic so whose partisan?Rumpelstiltskin223 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well you are clearly partisan here, Rumplesiltskin, continually calling anyone who challenges the unsourced and inflammatory rubbish you continue to post here, a "missionary". This sort of attitude would indicate someone working to an agenda. Priolkar's obscure and conveniently unobtainable book seems to be the only book in existence about the Goa Inquisition, so the description "most authoritative" is meaningless. Most of what you have quoted from this book is either polemic, POV opinion, lists things that have already been agreed, or else is vague and unsourced. There is no evidence for most of the claims that you keep on putting back in the article without agreement. There is no evidence or factual account given for the supposed tortures so luridly described, and the context of these passages is not given. Is this man describing incidents which he knows about - if so we should see names, dates, contexts and details. Or is he, as I suspect, just repeating general anti-inquisition literature? For an encyclopedia we need facts, not polemic and POV opinion. I have recently been involved on another site with someone who refuses to accept that Crusaders didn't massacre a city of 20,000 people and then eat them all! I get a feeling of deja-vu here. You have been challenged many times to produce legitimate evidence for the accusations you want to post (thousands killed, batches burned, Hindus massacred, pogroms, Jews massacred, etc. etc. )and the POV that infests your version of the article. You have failed to do so. Proof indeed tht these things have no proof. Xandar 14:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:POINT. I think we can stop WP:AGF with you beyond this point. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and if Priolkar is "obscure" (hee) then Arnold Toynbee is a nobody. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Besides, Priolkar himself is Roman Catholic so any question of POV is nonsensical. It's not like Hindus (whom you seem to have a hysterical hatred for) were the only victims. Even Christians were persecuted by the inquisition.Rumpelstiltskin223 14:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That is a classic "grasping at straws" argument. Book is readily available in most public libraries. Lots of references on the WWW (I already cited a peer-review founf easily online). 99.999 percentage of the book is researched fact. Please, missionary trolls really can't compete before academics. Rumpelstiltskin223 20:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then why does this Xandar and his sock puppet keep reverting the sourced edits? If I can get the book then anyone can.Priolkar meets wikipedia standards of WP:RS so this discussion is irrelevant. Rumpelstiltskin223 20:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: According to the book, most of Priolkar's research is based on European accounts and the accounts of Christian clergy only, plus his own research done in Goa based on historical records. We do not need to know the details, since an accredited scholar is allowed to do Original research, obviously. We only need to parrot him, and I have. Xandar says that he is some sort of Hindu liar (despite the fact that he is not even Hindu) then he should produce sources that either directly contradict Priolkar or accuse Priolkar of being a liar. Until then, he should stop revert-warring every day as he and his sock does.Rumpelstiltskin223 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I got the book from an inter-library loan service based on the academic access of an acquaintance. It cost me time and money but I did it. In any case, it would be impossible for me (and illegal copyvio) to start typing the whole book here. What dates and places do you need exactly? Why don't you list one below and I will extract the precise info from the book, ok? Rumpelstiltskin223 20:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The man has his references and the book.  get over it, xandar or you won't be able to sleep at night.  You clearly have a bible thumping agenda.--D-Boy 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: section break

message: If you want to know what supposed "facts" Rumpelstiltskin keeps putting in the article and which meed definite precise details, specifics  and  concrete scholarly attribution. How about these?
* Thousands killed and tortured by the inquisition. The biggest number with any attribution is 120
* the inquisition was aimed primarily at Hindus
* inquisitions against Indian Muslims, Indian Jews,
* condemned Hindus were publicly burned at the stake in the square outside the Sé Cathedral in batches
* heresy was to practice a faith other than Christianity
* Other less fortunate Hindus paid extortion money to Christian priests to keep their children from being kidnapped and baptized
* Those who "confessed" were strangled to death and their corpses burned. Those who did not were burned alive at the stake.
* The first martyr of consequence was Mar Ahathalla who was the bishop from Syria, who was staked by the Goan Inquisition.
* The Jews in the region were rounded up, together with the Hindus.
* The inquisition mandated that celebrating the Jewish Sabbath in Goa was enough to get an Indian Jew burned at the stake
* The Indian Jews were shackled in irons and imprisoned in filthy prisons for long periods of time before they were tried and executed
* the 16th century, the Portuguese massacre of South Indian Jewry
* In a letter written by the Portuguese to their king in 1513 permission is sought for their extermination
There are also still major issues of strongly POV writing and confusing language that makes vague general accusations, in the article. Xandar 15:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The man has his references and the book.  get over it, xandar or you won't be able to sleep at night.  You clearly have a bible thumping agenda.--D-Boy 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for attribution

message: I really don't understand how this can be included in Project Hinduism.?
I know that Priolkar has written a book saying that the Inquisition was aimed at Hindus but it is a blatant lie. The target of the inquisition were the newly converted Christians who were secretly continuing Hindu practices.
Take another inaccuracy: the massacre of Muslims took place when the Portuguese captured Goa , not during the inquisition. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Hinduism? 

message: It is clear from the reference provided that the Massacre of Muslims took place in 1510 whereas the inquisition was instituted in 1554. Hence this part is irrelavant to the article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed this section. To all the editors of this page: please don't put the section back without discussing here first. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "Persecution of Muslims" 

message: The best thing about this article so far :it mentioned Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Syrian christians, but absolutely no mention of the Goan Christians! Amazing! Speaks much for the "referenced sources" and "
real experts"  who created this article.
About time the real victims of the inquistion were added to the article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still demand an apology for your insult.--D-Boy 17:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One simple word : NO. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The big Joke 

message: The biggest joke is that two jokers-Deepak D'Souza and Akhilleus -[who are nothing but computer junkies but claim to be [self made] historians] are editing the article and modifying it according to their whims and fancies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.219.126.70 (talk • contribs).
:I've never claimed to be a historian, self-made or otherwise. Do you have anything to contribute besides insults? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you know the old jungle saying:"when you point a finger at someone, remeber this, three fingers point back at you"!.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The biggest Joke 

message: Hello,
I've re read the whole book. It appears that many of the laws passed by the colonial govt. have been attributed to the Inquisition. I think the treatment of minorities by the Colonial govt. deserves its own article.
I'm prepared to work User:Akhilleus on this. But i'd make it clear that i wont work with Deepak. He has not only questioned my integrity but also accused me of sockpuppetry. In retrospect his calls for assuming good faith seem hypocirtical.
 Amey Aryan DaBrood© 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You don't get to choose who you will and won't work with. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't want to work with me :-( ?? That's perfectly fine with me! But there is one unfortunate problem: you see Wikipedia is not some private company where you can chose your project or teammates. And I am not backing off from this article till it is accurate. Choice is yours!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus would turn the other cheek and apologize.  Where's my apology.  you've shown to be very uncivil about this.--D-Boy 07:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Third time that you are trying to play on my religuos feelings. Look who is talking about civility!Again you dont get any apology!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  :: I'm not asking to back you off. You are welcome to add anything you like. You havent even referenced any of your stuff anyways. But i wont co-operate or correspond with you. BTW Wikipedia IS a private foundation.  Amey Aryan DaBrood© 07:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NOT. And if you feel that since Wikipedia is a private foundation then you can go and talk to the TL, PL , PM , CEO whoever and see if you can get them to agree with you. The only change that I have done so far is to remove a "referenced" event that happened before the start of the Inquisition and which you, D-boy and Bakaman have tried so hard to preserve even if it was chronologically out of place.  Regarding the other stuff I will come with my referrnces soon. I havent made any changes yet that I havent provided references for have I? wait, be patient. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should to the CEO about this.  Isn't jimbo wales jewish?  he might side with us. :-D   Thanks for the suggestion, Deepak.--D-Boy 09:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By all means ! If you want to! Please go ahead! After all even Jimbo is a User on WIkipedia.(PS: you seem to keep a good track of evryone's religion!) --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why there have been so many references to people's religions in this discussion? Fresh start? Doesn't look like being one. Nothing regarding this article has been discussed here. All I see are some unnecessary comments on religions and personal attacks.Gnanapiti 19:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh start 

message: As promised I am putting the sources from the book Sarasvati's Children by Alan Machado Prabhu. The chapter is "Horrendum ac tremendum spectaculem". I have condensed it for berevity as well as copyright reasons.:
#Founded in Portugal in 1536 and it had the objective of ferreting out and exposing all traces of Judaism.
#Every catholic was bound under pain of execution to denounce suspects who were arrested in 2 witnesses were brought forth.
#Informers were rewarded and protected
#10th-Feb-1774 Inquisition abolished, 5 years later it was reinstated with new conditions:
* great number of witnesses were needed
* auto da fe should not be held publicly
#Completely done away in 1812.
#Jesuits are credited with urging its imposition: due to relapse of New Christians into the old ways
#established in Goa in 1560. Archbisho Gaspar Leao Pereira appointed as grand inquisitor. #jurisdiction over all countries eastof cape of goodhope
#21st Mar 1563: laws prohibition of Turkish and Persian Jews from entering Portuguese territories, banned heathen physicians and non-cultivating Brahmins
#In Goa the search for the crypto Jew soon turned into the ferreting out of the crypto Hindu in converts ... brought within its purview a  number of pre-conversion practices...
#Pyrard found Inquisition to be much worse in Goa than Portugal:
"sometimes Converts were accused of putting crucifixes under pillows...whipping their images, of not eating pork, or in some other ways respecting the old faith while they outwardly confirmed as Christians. objection to Christians having ritual baths in Naora river and crossing borders to participate in festivals and temple visits.
#Pyrard:" ...No protector or advocate... kept prisoner for 2-3 years, visited by no one... Only the rich are put to death while the poor get off with some penance... The Indian Gentiles or Moors, of whatsoever religion are not subject to this Inquisition, unless they have become Christians , and even then, not so rigourously dealt with as the Portuguese or New Christians from Portugal or other Christians from Europe. ... but if any Indian tried to prevent another from converting  or caused another to quit Christianity ..he would be punished "
#culprits marched in shirts steeped in Sulphur and painted with flames of fire, led to the cathedral(St catherines), after the sermon, the condemned were burned... those who confessed to being Christian were strangled or allowed to suffocate in the smoke.
#auto da fe ceremony coducted every 2-3 yrs
#in 2andhalf centuries: 57 burnt alive and 67 in effigy. 105 men and 16 women.
Ohter subjected to various punishments totalled 4,046 (3,034 men).
#Last auto da Fe 7-Feb1773
#On 16-Dec-1676 two Indian Christians were burnt for sorcery along with the bones of 4 other , one who had commited suicide.
#Linschoten mentions imprisionment and torture of Hindus, treatment of new converts even harsher.
della Valle(1623)abd Gamelli Careri(1695) describe how the Inquisitor treated Christians if they deviated from religios orthodoxy and Hindus if they practised their religion. Bocarro(1634) ... slaves of Portuguese had fled Chaul to other lands. Sasetti cites its ferocity as being responsible for migration.
Please do not edit above this line. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we looking at 16,202 trials resulting in 4000+ convictions?. Or the 16,000 v/s 4000 figure(for convictions) is too much of a difference.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source from "Sarasvati's Children" 

message: *These numbers seem low. Appendix 2 to Saraiva (2001) says that at least 16,202 trials were conducted between 1561-1774. The Inquisition's records were destroyed after it was abolished in 1812, so this number can only be approximate, but 4000 is definitely too low. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we looking at 16,202 trials resulting in 4000+ convictions?. Or the 16,000 v/s 4000 figure(for convictions) is too much of a difference.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I have recently removed a link under "external links" that led to a website called "christianaggression.org" which is a collection of news and articles bashing Christian activity in Asia and India in particular. The link led specifically to an article attributed to "Christian historian, Dr. T. R. de Souza", lacking any hard references, that says the following about inquisitorial practices in Goa: "Eyelids were sliced off and extremities were amputated carefully, a person could remain conscious even though the only thing that remained was his torso and a head." Somehow it looks VERY unlikely that people could do this amputation leaving only head and torso centuries ago. Other parts of the article do not strike me as impossible to believe like this one (I'm far from an Inquisition specialist), but anyway I think it would be appropriate to remove this particular website from the section. After my removal an anonymous user has undone my edit. What do you people think? Fsouza 00:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove it. It's highly unlikely that anything from a site that names itself "christianaggression" is going to be worthwhile. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hate website

message: I reverted an edit from the defender of wikipedia which blanked references from priolkar, shirodkar, and sakshena under the guise of "dubious" and "consensus". I find no consensus, other than from SPA trolls like jandolin and deepak d'souza and perhaps Rama's Arrow. This was reverted again, with a rather inane edit summary.Bakaman 04:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removals of priolkar and others

message: I'm trying to go through this article and remove everything that's been tagged as dubious. It's been tagged for months, and no one's done anything about sourcing the tagged material. In addition, I've removed almost everything in the "persecution of Hindus" section, for a couple of reasons. While a lot of it claims to be sourced to Priolkar, I don't think any of the editors who have been contributing have actually read Priolkar--the only specific citation was to a review of the book that appeared in a journal in the '60s. (Rumpelstiltskin did read the book, but he's a sock of Hkelkar, so I'm not putting too much trust in his edits.)
The other, bigger problem with the "persecution of Hindus" section is that most of it dealt with anti-Hindu laws. Well, guess what, these laws weren't passed by the Inquisition, they were put in place by the Portuguese colonial administration. Different institutions, as has been discussed above. Some of this material might belong as historical background, but it certainly doesn't belong in this form. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious material and poorly sourced material

message: This is height of stupidity.The sources of Pirolkar etc and the fact there was persecution of Hindus has been removed by this Idiot.[I know this is not wikipedia word but this is height of stupidity ].Please pass on message to wikipedia higher authorities to take note of this and disallow Akhilleus from editing.I request Wikipedian authorities to do a background check on him if he[Akhilleus ] is really a historian/authority to edit such truth and facts. Most probably he is just a computer junkie sitting and playing an edit war.STOP THIS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.220.222 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can somebody complain about Stupid and idiot Akhilleus for editing facts on this article?

message: I don't know whoi did it buyt somewhere is the long chain of edits someone deliberately removed the line that the inquisition ended in 1812. Some poor reader could be forgiven for beleiving that the inquisition still exists. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective Editing 

message: this article is about an immoral practice accidently practised by christianity in goa . it is therefore requested of christians not to take such an act as something ridiculing their faith . but something that was a part of history and therfore stop all attempts at cleansing this article .
some like deepak d'souza are questioning some references on the basis that they are not found anywhere from where they have checked out . this does not mean that what they consider to be false becomes false .  let the readers decide .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooleralways (talk • contribs) 06:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence in question states that "children were flogged and slowly dismembered in front of their parents whose eyelids had been sliced off to make sure they missed nothing. Extremities were amputated carefully, so that a person could remain conscious even when all that remained was a torso and a head...". Did these acts of unbearable violence take place? Extraordinary claims may need extraordinary confirmation. Just to cite book X by author Y for such a statement, without showing HOW author Y reached this conclusion, is highly questionable. It is also absolutely difficult to believe that one could be conscious after all his limbs have been cut off... Fsouza (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. Also, Cooleralways, please read the rules of Wikipedia. especiall this one: Credentials are irrelevant. Nobody edits an article as a Christian or a Hindu. Everything is based on reliabale references. Any user can question the reliability of a source if he/she has a reason to doubt its authenticity. Just because someone has put something in a book does not mean it is true or correct. You can find a book that says that the Earth is flat. That does not mean that it "is" flat. --Deepak D'Souza 04:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I assume that you have the book and that is the reason why you are quoting from it. Can you please tell us the alleged crimes for which these children were tortured so mercilessly? --Deepak D'Souza 07:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dismembered childeren

message: "The fact that these Catholics who fled the Inquisition did not abandon their Christian faith testifies to the fact that they simply wanted to observe their traditional Hindu customs in conjunction with new found Catholic practices as well."
Above paragraph is either an original reasearch or POV statement. I was not able to read the reference provided as website has been moved. In any case, "non-converting" may not mean they wanted to remain Christians but it has more to do with the fact that there was no option to convert back to "Hinduism". Conversion to Hinduism is very recent (relatively) phenomenon.
Request to remove/significantly rephrase the above para.
66.50.167.234 (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the info is neither POV nor original research. It is the conclusion of historian Severine Silva. Here is the link  so you can check it out for yourself. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 08:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research/POV para?

message: My edit 
:(cur | prev) 21:28, 28 February 2014‎ Clapkidaq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,335 bytes) (+2,078)‎ . . (rv unexplained deletion by pov warrior see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.wikipedia/u4dJIwvCQc4) (undo)
was reverted because the source is not valid. 
But the subject of PERSECUTION of Jews is very important. Please Help in finding source for this. THANK YOU.--Clapkidaq (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not use all caps, especially in section titles, would you mind if I fixed that? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persecution of Jews 

message: Substituted at 16:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Who on earth has been looking after his article? Please read up and see what "burned in effigy" means, they most certainly did not do this in the dark ages. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly. •nix•  — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.narinder (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles on auto-da-fe, the Spanish Inquisition and the Portuguese Inquisition also list both people being burned at the stake (which so often followed the public penance part of the auto-da-fe that it began to be considered synonymous with it) and "burning people in effigy." Maybe they figured the public disgrace was enough. I don't recall having seen that before. Have been trying to find the original sources to see exactly what they say.Parkwells (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Portuguese Inquisition includes a detailed table of sentences, with "Executions 'in persona' " and Executions 'in effigie' " listed separately. Sources in this article (see Lead and later discussion, note that "burning in effigy" was a sentence for persons in absentia or who had died in prison. In the latter case, their remains were burned in a coffin at the same time as their effigy was burned, likely at the stake or from a crossbeam. The public display was important. Parkwells (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  64 were burned in effigy 

message: This mentions that they couldn't do anything to them because the Vatican recognised their patriarch--directly contradicting the article. From the archives, /Archive1#Dubious_tags, an editor's quote from another source (point "p119") seems to fill the gap. I'm unsure about this till more research is done though. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Christians 

message: I've reverted this addition based on them being potentially unreliable sources. 
*
*
Both are not notable publications and authors; please see WP:HISTRS. The authors have unverified credentials. One even mentions Koenraad Elst, a noted fringe author. If there was indeed rape, then historians would have at least mentioned it. The death toll, as such, is discussed in the article already and don't see why these non-RSes should be used to supplement it in a separate section. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death toll and rape 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Goa Inquisition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120624085652/http://www.dightonrock.com:80/inquisition_goa.htm to http://www.dightonrock.com/inquisition_goa.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Voltaire isn't an academic source. He was a writer with his prejudices.Xx236 (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Goa Inquisition was most merciless and cruel' is a text about a novel. Xx236 (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Is Alfredo DeMello "Alfredo Bachmann de Mello (1924–2010) was a well-known travel writer and memoirist who authored an auto-biography, From Goa to Patagonia: memoirs spanning times and spaces"?Xx236 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, but fortunately, they aren't used as sources or opinions stated in the encyclopedia voice...rather in the "quotes" section (WP:QUOTEFARM warning) with is less than okay per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Could be put into a Legacy section instead, when there's content for it. He commenting on it, definitely relevant to this topic I feel. Don't know about Alfredo DeMello though... Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Voltaire was very radical and biased . If we quote biased opinions, there are probably symetrically biased ones (from Salazar's Portugal?), why don't we have them?Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Was Alfredo DeMello a historian? Any sources?Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voltaire as a source?