Talk:Joseph Kallarangatt

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Mar Joseph Kallarangatt Pala.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

On July 27, 2021 a circular issued by the bishop that announces sops for families in the Diocese of Pala with five or more children, invited criticism from various corners.[1][2] A remark from the bishop made on Sept 9, 2021 that Christian girls are falling prey to love jihad and narcotic jihad triggered a controversy in the state of Kerala.[3][4]

please remove this Jjosephv (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

This request is elaborated in the next section, so I will close this. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021 (2)

Controversies

---

please change this title to Recent Interventions

On July 27, 2021 a circular issued by the bishop that announces sops for families in the Diocese of Pala with five or more children, invited criticism from various corners.[1][2] A remark from the bishop made on Sept 9, 2021 that Christian girls are falling prey to love jihad and narcotic jihad triggered a controversy in the state of Kerala.[3][4]

change this to

On July 27, 2021 a circular issued by the bishop that announces sops for families in the Diocese of Pala with five or more children, accepted by the faithful .[1][2] A remark from the bishop made on Sept 9, 2021 that Christian girls are falling prey to love jihad and narcotic jihad was proved with recent events happened. Jjosephv (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021 (3)

CONTROVERSIES UNAVAILABLE TINUMON THOMAS mj (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Controversies enters incorrectly remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by TINUMON THOMAS mj (talk • contribs) 04:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete the controversy because it's entered incorrectly. TINUMON THOMAS mj (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The controversy entered is to harass him mentally. TINUMON THOMAS mj (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@TINUMON THOMAS mj: I moved the comments you placed elsewhere on this page to this section. Please keep related comments in the same section and place replies below existing comments. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: @TINUMON THOMAS mj: The claims in the controversies section are backed up by seemingly reliable sources. At best, with additional sources it could be added that the statements are disputed as to whether or not they were made, but it will not be removed. — IVORK _Talk 04:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Per this talk page comment, Harmony4truth has attempted to remove this content at the request of the subject. Since there are three subsequent new accounts—Stjoseph20, TINUMON THOMAS mj, and Jjosephv—that were created with the sole purpose of attempting to remove the same content, the only logical interpretations are either an off-Wikipedia campaign by the subject to remove the material (in which case WP:COI applies) or sockpuppetry. —C.Fred (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

The entire Love Jihad controversy section should be removed as the entire topic is an ongoing topic in the news on a statement made by the Bishop. Proponents and opponents are constantly modifying the page (where in one case) a user has made a altogether new Wiki page to further create false claims where the citations he had mentioned in only news channels which has stated what the Bishop has said and has no relation to the authenticity of the facts. Narco Jihad terminology has been in use for more than a decade with the US intelligence and United Nations report on drugs also mentioning the same . Recent arrests made in India where the arrested said the narcotics where being smuggled to destroy the non-muslims were also reported.

I suggest the section be removed and article locked in its entirety until the Government of India takes a stance on the matter and is resolved. Pottalogic (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Lead

@Br Ibrahim john, the WP:LEAD literally says It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.. Where does the policy say lead must be concise?. You haven't explained why you are restoring a poorly sourced version with many unreliable sources in your talk page or in User:Tayi Arajakate's talk page. I appears that you are attempting to White wash the article of the controversies the subject was involved in. - SUN EYE 1 08:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Of course, the lead must be concise. It must be the article in a nutshell. But here it is consuming almost quarter of the article. What's the point in that. And the comments from non notable people like some nuns, and removal of notable comments like that of the Church head, cannot be justified. Meanwhile, a rape case, probably related to Franco Mulackal is unrelated to the person and will be removed. Neutrality in Wikepedia means Wikepedia must not have a pov. Everything that's reliable, both in support and against must be added. Wikepedia must not give its own opinion to the viewers. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The lead is very concise here. It does not cover quarter of the article and it has one of the smallest leads among many articles I've seen. The subject is a bishop and so is a public figure and there is not reason to remove the accusations. Read WP:NPOV, that version is reliably sourced and there are no opinions.- SUN EYE 1 09:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021

X Kallarangatt is involved in a number of controversies over covering up of a sexual assault allegation in the Church laid against another bishop,[4][5] providing sops to influence Syro-Malabar Christian women to have four or more children,[6][7] and promoting conspiracy theories such as "love jihad" and "narcotics jihad".[8] He has also been accused of using the love and narcotics jihad controversy as a distraction from the sexual assault and corruption allegations surrounding the Church and to forge an alliance with the Hindutva movement in India, in an effort to prevent corruption investigations from agencies under the Narendra Modi government.[9][10][11]

Y Mar Joseph Kallarangatt heads the Palai diocese of the Syro-Malabar Church, one of the biggest Catholic churches in the state. The diocese is home to the largest concentration of Syro-Malabar Christians in Kerala. Kallarangatt, born in 1956 and ordained as a priest in 1982, is considered a scholar and authority on topics of theology within the Church. He has authored over 30 books. [9]He also alleged that young women, belonging to Christianity and other non-Muslim faiths, were being lured by ‘jihadis’ through ‘love jihad’ and subjected to exploitation, forced religious conversion and terrorist activities.[10]Joseph Kallarangatt is an Indian Catholic prelate and theologian, who is the 3rd Bishop of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Eparchy of Palai.[11]He is currently the chairman of the Syro-Malabar Synodal Commission for Family, Laity and Life and wields enormous clout within the Church. Indian2051 (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: @Indian2051: Because the controversies are a significant part of why he's notable, they should be given this much coverage in the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is misleading as a single antagonistic view point filled with hatred is used while making the profile of the bishop. This clearly shows that Wikipedia has been manipulated to harass a minority community and it's local head. Vija!!7 (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vija!!7: It appears that there's more on the controversies about him simply because that's what gotten coverage. If there are independent reliable sources documenting other items in his career, then we can looking at adding that material to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

Some of the sources are not reliable Kokovosebastiano (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 06:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

No reference to Joseph Kallarangatt in Bishop Franco controversy

Remove the reference that Joseph Kallarangatt is involved in the covering up of sexual allegation. The links to the charge sheet against bishop Franco is here: https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2020/08/13/charge-sheet-nun-rape-case-bishop-franco-mulakkal.html and https://theprint.in/india/police-file-chargesheet-against-bishop-franco-mulakkal-in-kerala-nun-rape-case/219243/ Remove all the erroneous claims in the article that connects joseph Kallarangatt with Bishop Franco mulakkal caseEzhuth (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CENSOR - SUN EYE 1 15:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BLP DeCausa (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa The recent revert of yours is a different content and not the one you removed earlier. You should have checked it properly before giving me a warning.- SUN EYE 1 16:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You’rer right it wasn’t what I was gong for but you were still edit warring and that warning stands. I’ve taken it out manually now. But put that blatant BLP breach back again and you’ll be blocked. DeCausa (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa, I'm aware of WP:BLP and blocking policy, the older version of the lead was a summary without sources [1]. Can you provide diffs for where I had reverted the same content more than once? and what is wrong with this, I don't think that was a "language correction" - SUN EYE 1 16:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

ping @Tayi Arajakate who added the sources in the lead.- SUN EYE 1 16:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I have went though it again, the Caravan article cited for that part states the following; The survivor, who says that she was sexually abused by the bishop on several occasions between 2014 and 2016, had complained to various authorities in the church’s hierarchy, in person and through letters, since June 2017. fter attempts that spanned a year saw no response, she filed a complaint against the bishop with the Kuravilangad Police on 28 June this year. The protest itself was ostensibly a product of the church’s history of silence over sexual abuse ... On 8 September, the day the protest began, the survivor sent a letter outlining in detail her attempts to appeal to authorities in the church. ... "In the month of June 2017, I met Rev. Fr. Joseph Thadathil the Parish Priest of Kuravilangad Church and also Bishop Joseph Kallarangatt the Bishop of Palai Diocese," the survivor wrote in this latest letter ...

So a more accurate version would be something like "inaction" rather than "covering up" but calling it a "blatant BLP violation" is misleading. I don't have any strong views on the content and don't particularly care if it is included or not. There were repeated attempts by a socking user to remove all negative material from the article so I had added citations for everything in the lead and this was one of them. Also, the only "blatant BLP violation" is in Special:Diff/1055518424 by Ezhuth, that was restored by DeCause in Special:Diff/1055565419, which changes "ThD" to "STD" and is currently present in the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That source only says Kallargarangatt met with the victim. It’s WP:SYNTH and unsupported by the source that says either he was involved in a cover-up or that he was guilty of “inaction”. Both are blatant BLP violations. DeCausa (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That source says that the nuns protested over church authorities who remained silent at the allegations and mentions him as one of the figure in the church the victim complained to. Stating that he was "involved in a controversy over inaction with regards to a sexual assault allegation in the Church" is semantically consistent with the source neither would such a sentence mean that he was found "guilty" of any crime. What sources are being synthesised? This is from a single source here.

Though he appears to play a comparatively smaller part in this controversy so I don't have any issues if it is disincluded in the lead. That said, can you explain why you have still not self reverted the one blatant BLP violation present in the article, that you reintroduced, even after it has been pointed out to you? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

that source doesn’t say anything about Kallarangat’s inaction or otherwise. Your using his role in the church (obviously sourced elsewhere) to attribute to him the Church’s inaction. That’s WP:SYNTH and a violation of WP:BLP. If you don’t understand that you shouldn’t be editing BLPs. Oh, and by the way the standard abbreviation for Sacrae Theologiae Doctor is not a BLP volation. DeCausa (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That source describes him as "Bishop Joseph Kallarangatt the Bishop of Palai Diocese" in the lines accompanying its attribution of inaction to Church authorities, his role in the church is pretty clear in the source whether you like it or not. Frivolously accusing other editors of original research and BLP violations is not going to take you far. Sacrae Theologiae Doctor is still unsourced and was never specified in the article, one would assume STD means what it usually does in the manner it was present in the article. If one can source it and appropriately present it, they are free to do so. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A 14 year old adolescent might think that. I’m not bothered about STD v ThD. It’s immaterial and the fact that your lack of knowledge makes you think there’s a problem with it is also immaterial. However, this article has been rightly flagged on the BLP board by other users (which is how I’ve come to it) and sloppy use of sources by mputing the institutions action or inaction to the BLP subject without an express source in the way you just described will be reverted. You should be aware that the 3 revert rule doesn’t apply per WP:BLPREMOVE. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Since you have come down to making personal attacks, I'm not going to bother anymore. And I haven't reverted any of your (or anyone else's) edits in this dispute nor am I disputing the edits themselves, so I don't know why you're telling me this but good luck trying to use WP:BLPREMOVE to justify the restoration of unsourced material or the removal of sourced material by denying what the source says. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m telling for the last time that restoring the text that says that Kallarangatt is “involved” in the covering up of sexual allegations or was “inactive” based on the cited source (which doesn’t explicitly say that) is a violation of WP:BLP. DeCausa (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. Who are you telling that to? I haven't argued that the text should be restored nor did the text say he is responsible for a cover up, it said he was involved in the controversy surrounding the allegation. Perhaps you can stop being hostile to others and try reading for a start.

The cited source attributes inaction to "various authorities in the Church's hierarchy" and then explicitly names him among a couple others. Of course it's not going to attribute it solely to him since he isn't the only one. The fact that this accusation exists is pretty clear from the source, whether its inclusion is warranted or not is a different matter, which one could reasonably argue over. If you think adding it in the lead is not in line with WP:BLP then alright, I'm not contesting it and that would be that.

It's quite easy to find sources which are even more explicit about it, if that's what you want. For instance there is this scroll.in article which states, "... In an interview to the Malayalam newspaper Mathrubhumi, the nun said she approached the police after her complaints to Ernakulam-Angamaly Archbishop George Alencherry, Bishop Joseph Kallarangatt, who heads the Pala diocese in Kerala, and the mother superior of her congregation did not result in any action against the accused bishop. ..." Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The only text that both this source and the other source can be used to support is that the nun approached Kallarangatt. It’s a BLP - you can’t make statements that imply wrongdoing from that. You certainly can’t expressly say he was involved in a coverup. You can’t refer to “inactivity” with a subtext that he wrongfully stopped anything happening. For a BLP you need express and explicit statement in the source. Do you understand there is a higher standard for BLPs? DeCausa (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The nun is saying that he didn't do anything after she complained to him, that's source-able. If you think it implies that he wrongfully stopped anything happening, that's just your imagination. I haven't expressly said he was involved in a coverup. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Sexual assault, Corruption, Hindutva Movement: BLP manipulation

Based on tabloid accusation referred in Footnote 7,8 and 9, accusations that are far distant are amassed against Joseph Kallarangatt. violation of BLP rules Ezhuth (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Two sections on love/narcotics jihad controversy?

Ezhuth added a section to the article presenting a more detailed narrative of Kallarangatt's 8 September sermon, but one that generally is redundant to the section already in the article about it. Frankly, my concern is that this is a POV fork preventing a version of events that is more flattering to Kallarangatt. I don't think this editor is acting in bad faith—there has been some outright whitewashing of the article in the past—but I do think this editor can be placed, broadly, in the category of editors who have shown up with the intent of removing negative material from the article or otherwise trying to shine a positive light on the subject.

What material can we take from the new section and integrate into the pre-existing one? —C.Fred (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned at the overuse of quotation and some very generous paraphrasing, bordering on original research, from this source, for instance. I'm not sure content can be directly salvaged, though I have not compared the sources to see if there's any new material in the sources just added. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Full of WP:OR. A good portion of the references were before the incident even happened. - SUN EYE 1 19:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The sermon quotes previous events with names of persons involved. How can we change the content of one's sermon Ezhuth (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

When a particular sermon made by Joseph Kallarangatt becomes controversial for some reason, we should start from the sermons, its context; to be precise every text has context. Joseph Kallarangatt mentioned in his sermon several past and recent events including names that needs to be presented in an article about him. Wikipedia demands "an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources" Wikipedia:Libel -Ezhuth (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

When we deal with a BLP, Wikipedia demands balance of presentation WP:BLPBALANCE The voice of the living person should be presented first of all WP:BLPKINDNESS. Two titles repeating the word "Controversy" and "2021" are in the article: "2018–2021: Controversies in the Church" and "2021 Love and narcotics jihad controversy". It seems that term "Controversy" is too much highlighted. A sentence like "On 3 February 2020, Kallarangatt presided over the consecration function for Jose Pulickal's appointment as the 4th Bishop of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Eparchy of Kanjirappally.[15]" is even added under one of these titles. Impartial tone is needed in the presentation WP:BLPSTYLE "2021 Love and narcotics jihad controversy" can be edited as "Controversies and reactions after the terms love and narcotic jihad". The content under the title can be retained since it concentrates on the reactions from various angles in the society. Ezhuth (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You mentioned WP:BLPKINDNESS. Are you related to Joseph Kallarangatt in anyway? - SUN EYE 1 19:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPKINDNESS is an ethics in creating BLP according to Wikipedia; something basic when you handle a living person who have a right to his or her good name. Happy that you don't accuse Wikipedia as a relative of Joseph Kallarangatt Your question in fact, belongs to the category of argumentum ad hominem -Ezhuth (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ezhuth: WP:BLPKINDNESS mentions how to deal with the subject of an article when they arrive and (attempt to) edit an article. Are you saying that this situation applies currently? —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It is applicable if the subject himself/herself is not in the digital circle to comment for himself/herself. Also no attempt is made in the page to blank any writing already published. Nothing is treated as "problematic" and no attempt is made to "blank" it by inappropriate deletion. WP:BLPKINDNESS -Ezhuth (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think sermon itself has enough notability to list on the wiki page, the controversy around the speech made on that event is the notable event Abvayad (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Joseph Kallarangatt.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kallarangatt.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Promoting conspiracy theories

Allegations are always opinions, otherwise, it must have PROOF, which makes it fact. Where is the evidence for the allegation [...] using the love and narcotics jihad controversy as a distraction from the sexual assault and corruption allegations surrounding the church and to forge an alliance with the Hindutva movement in India, in an effort to prevent corruption investigations [...]? When did Wikipedia started publishing conspiracy theories? Otherwise, provide proof. The three cited sources reports conspiracy theories by collecting "comments" from non-notable individuals, which violates WP:BIASED and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. How is that notable? Is this newspaper? They do not even qualify to add with an attribution. It is common when someone makes a controversial allegation, those opposing them makes counter allegations, but stitching those into Wikipedia is not encyclopedic, WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTOPINION. Remove. 117.230.91.62 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Are we sure that the news sources didn't do other research and just used the quotations to make a more readable article? —C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

100 percent agree. Seems like masala content made way into wikipedia articles. Stripedkangaroo (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)