Talk:Babri Mosque

Latest Edits

The latest edits on the opening paragraph are not appropriate. The anonymous editor hasn’t made any effort to address concerns, so I'm going to make it clear as to why the edits don’t work.

Firstly, there is excessive detail that makes the opening paragraph lose the pointed style opening paragraphs need. This information needs to be in the appropriate areas further down, if at all.

Second, it adds a lot of off-topic information. This is not the Ayodhya Debate page, it is the Babri Mosque page. Therefore the opening paragraph, and most of the other paragraphs must be about the mosque itself, not what was there before the mosque.

Third, the referencing is poor. There is nothing indicating academic backup of the claims for the prevailing temple, no references for the later court orders or Muslim unrest. A request for referencing about the claimed religious demographics of Ayodhya resulted in a useless link to the Indian Census page which gives no information at all. The claim that there have been no Muslim prayers at the site since 1947 would definitely require a reference.

Fourth, the history information is hopelessly out of order. It moves from ancient times to 1992 to construction in 1527 to 1984 to independence in 1947 then 1989 then back to 1528. Is the editor deliberately trying to cause confusion?

Fifth, the edits reproduce information from other sections. The history information is better expressed, and more evenly expressed in the History section.

Also, the translation of ‘Mosque i Janmasthan’ is ‘Mosque of the Birthplace’, NOT birthplace of Lord Rama, otherwise Krishna Janmasthan would translate as Krishna Birthplace of Lord Rama

I understand the editor may be a passionate supporter of whatever is their cause, and that they have added what they believe to be true. However, the edit does not belong in the opening paragraph and most of it is either repetition or it doesn’t belong in this article. They do their point of view in the debate no favours by constantly adding these edits back in. I am happy to discuss these concerns with the anonymous editor, with a view to finding out what the aim of edits are, but the constant re-insertion of poor material without discussion can’t continue. Mdw0 (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting there, although the Origins of the dispite section really needs to be combined with the Hindu Account in the History section. Mdw0 (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Architecture ..." section does not have a single in-line citation. Burden of proof is on the author. Nshuks7 (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality

Hi, I saw that this page has been inactive for a while, so I archived it. See the archive if you want to see the discussion. If you wish to add anything, please copy the relevant bits from the archive and paste it here, then add your comment(s). Thank you. Joshua Issac (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm learning about Wikipedia. I want to read about hotly discussed topics. 59.163.32.26 (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

MUSLIMS VERSION OF EVENTS Was there a temple beneath the Babri Masjid? Having examined the records of excavations conducted by Prof. B.B.Lal, former Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in the seventies at the Ayodhya site, preserved at the Purana Qila office of the ASI, a team of four historians and archaeologists came to the conclusion that there was no proof of it. They explained their findings and conclusions at the press conference held at the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), New Delhi, on October 23,1992. The experts: Prof. R.S. Sharma, former Chairman of the ICHR; Prof. M. Athar Ali (Rtd.) Department of History, Aligarh University; Prof. Suraj Bhan (Rtd.), Professor of History, Kurukshetra University; and Prof. D.N. Jha, Professor of History, University of Delhi. They had earlier been to Ayodhya and made on-the-spot studies of the Ayodhya excavation site.

The new material evidence relates to excavations done by Prof. B.B. Lal over 11 years ago in areas in the vicinity of the Babri Masjid. Prof. Lal has since published a series of documents on results of his studies. He made an announcement recently that brick base found in the vicinity of the masjid could be meant for sustaining pillars and therefore suggest the existence of a temple-like structure south of the Babri masjid. The BJP is taking it as the basic evidence for the existence of a temple where the masjid stands.

The experts examined the site notebook and register of antiquities connected with the Ayodhya excavations, studied the drawings, plans, photographs, and excavated material and found that the recent claim of Prof. Lal regarding the existence of a mandir-like structure was unsubstantiated. The existence of a brick base for pillars does not prove that it could be of a temple. If there was a temple, at least some articles related to the temple could have been found during the excavations. No such evidence had been found by Prof. Lal.

Even in his own report submitted to the Archaeological Survey of India in 1976-77 and in 1979-80, Professor Lal had stated “several later medieval brick-and-kankar lime floors have been sighted, but the entire late period was devoid of any special interest.” The later medieval period indicated 17th-l8th centuries. If remains of a structure of 17th-l8th centuries, are found outside the masjid area, how do they prove the presence of a temple that was supposedly built in the 11th century and destroyed in the early 16th century? the experts asked. They also point out that the excavations did not reveal any pillars, or roof material of the supposed temple at the site where the brick pillar base stood. The mere presence of pillar bases does not make out a case for the existence of a temple.

Interestingly, pieces of glazed ware pottery were unearthed from the trenches above the floors associated with the brick-pillar base structure and immediately below the general floor of the Babri Masjid. It is an accepted fact that Islamic glazed-ware pottery has never been used in Hindu temple. The presence of the glazed pottery shows that as in other parts of Ayodhya, this site also was inhabited by Muslims around the thirteenth century, and the pillar structure could have been anything but a temple, had already fallen down and gone out of use before the Muslim habitation.

Now about the black basalt stone-pillars used in the four arches of the Masjid. VHP argues that they formed part of the temple which was destroyed. Similar pillars are also found in the graveyard nearby. All these differ in their style and diameter and their total lack of stratigraphic association rules out the possibility of their being an integral part of any single structure. Such pillars are also found in other parts of Ayodhya in completely unrelated contexts. Besides, the pillar bases existing at a distance of about 60 feet to the south of the Babri Masjid structure are in alignment with the pillars used in the Babri Masjid. They could have been part of a veranda or a dwelling place or an animal shed and are of no importance as such structures could be found in the area even now. Thus, archeological evidence so far suggests the existence of Muslim habitation proximal to the Masjid from the 13th century onwards. [Courtesy, Nation and the World, New Delhi, Nov. 16, 1992] There is no historical record stating that the site had a temple that was destroyed to build a mosque. TOI. The earliest mention of the Babri water well was in a two line reference to the Mosque in the Gazette of Faizabad District 1918 which says “There are no significant historical buildings here, except for various Buddhist shrines, the Babri Mosque is an ancient structure with a well which both the Hindus and Mussalmans claim has Miraculous properties.” The Babri Mosque was a large imposing structure with three domes, one central and two secondary. It is surrounded by two high walls, running parallel to each other and enclosing a large central courtyard with a deep well, which was known for its cold and sweet water. On the high entrance of the domed structure are fixed two stone tablets which bear two inscriptions in Persian declaring that this structure was built by one Mir Baqi on the orders of Babur. The walls of the Babri Mosque are made of coarse-grained whitish sandstone blocks, rectangular in shape, while the domes are made of thin and small burnt bricks. Both these structural ingredients are plastered with thick chunam paste mixed with coarse sand.

When did the Ayodhya controversy erupt? According to recorded history, Babri Masjid was built in 1528 by Mir Bank who was Babur's viceroy in that region. There is no historical record stating that the site had a temple that was destroyed to build a mosque. The mosque was known by several names, including Masjid-i Janmasthan, Jami Masjid, Sita Rasoi Masjid and so on. The District Gazetteer of Faizabad documents that the mosque was a place of worship for both religions. Incidents of communal violence over the ownership of the site started from 1853 and the British government tried to resolve it in 1859 by erecting a fence that divided the mosque into an inner and outer court. Hindus were allowed to construct a raised platform (chabutra) in the outer court, while the inner court was to be used only by Muslims.

Did the two-nation theory have an impact on the mosque? It is well known that the two-nation theory worked as a major divide between both communities in most parts of the country. The mosque did not remain untouched, as the site started witnessing communal riots since early 1910s. A major riot erupted in 1934 when police had to be called in to control the situation.

What was the 1949 controversy about? In December 1949, the controversy reached new heights when mahants decided to recite the Ramayana in front of the mosque. It was later reported by the devotees who had gathered for that recitation that the image of Lord Ram appeared inside the mosque. But the administration and the Muslim community were not impressed as it was alleged that idols were placed inside by Hindus who entered the mosque by breaking its locks. Because of the controversy, the place was locked up.

Who filed the first title suit? The first suit was filed in 1950 by Gopal Singh Visharad, a shopkeeper in Ayodhya. The suit was filed in Faizabad civil court, seeking a ruling that would grant permission to perform puja at the site. The second suit was filed by Paramhans Tamchandra Das, again in 1950, and it sought the same injunction. This suit was later withdrawn. In 1959, Nirmohi Akhara filed a title suit, claiming ownership of the site. This prompted the UP Sunni Ce-ntral Board of Waqfs to file the fourth suit in 1961. The fifth suit was filed in 1989. With one of these suits having been withdrawn, four title suits were pending in the Faizabad civil court. In 1989, these suits were transferred to Allahabad HC. TOI

Ancient Sanskrit Documents

IT IS surprising that the VHP has not been able to provide even a single ancient Sanskrit document in support of its claim that there had been an ancient belief in Ram-janmasthan at Ayodhya. On the contrary evidence suggests that reverence of Ayodhya as the birthplace of Ram began not before the l8th century. The only document in support of its claim is the Skanda Purana, which abounds in interpolations. At best, the core of it was compiled not earlier than 16th century. This Purana has a chapter extolling the greatness of Ayodhya (Ayodhya Mahatmya) which appears towards the end of the work and which clearly is a later addition. Even if we accept the location of the birthplace of Rama as given in the Ayodhya Mahatmya, it does not coincide with that of the Babri Masjid. According to the Skanda Purana, the birthplace of Rama is 500 dhanus (910 meters) westward of Laumash and 1009 dhanus (1835 meters) eastward of Vighneshvara. Laumash is identical with the present Rinamochana Ghat. Thus, if we follow the Skanda Purana directions, the birthplace of Rama should be located somewhere west, in the vicinity of the Brahmakunda, close to the bed of the Saryu. So even accounting to the Skanda Purana the birthplace of Rama cannot be located on the site where the Babri Masjid stands. Mughal Records, AD 1528

A PIECE of authentic recorded history regarding the Masjid is the Persian inscription put on the Masjid immediately upon its construction in AD 1528-29. In that inscription nowhere has it been mentioned that the Masjid was built after destroying a temple or upon the site of a temple. If Mir Baqi who constructed the Masjid had destroyed the temple, he would have considered it a meritorious act and would have mentioned it in the inscriptions. Tulsidas, AD 1575

WITHIN FIFTY years of the construction of the Babri Masjid, the celebrated poet Tulsidas composed the Ram Charit Manas (1575-76), written in Avadhi. Is it possible to believe that Tulsidas would not have given vent to his grief had the very birth-site of Lord Rama had been ravaged, its temple razed to the ground and a mosque built in its place? If Ayodhya was sacred to the Hindus, he should have included it among the places of pilgrimage. Tulsidas suggests Prayag as one of the principal places of pilgrimage and not Ayodhya. In other words, even in the latter half of the 16th century Ayodhya was not considered as one of the holy places. A’in-i-Akbari, AD 1598

THE EARLIEST mention of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage is in the A’in-i-Akbari by Abul Fazl who completed it in AD 1598. Abul Fazl includes Ayodhya among the important places of pilgrimage in India. In the chapter on Ayodhya, he gives a detailed account of an extensive area called Ayodhya where Ramnavmi festival is celebrated and which is esteemed to be one of the holiest places of antiquity. He even mentions small details such as two Jewish priests lying buried in Ayodhya. Yet there is not the remotest reference to Ram’s birthsite, let alone to any mosque built on it. William Flinch, AD 1608

THE BRITISH historian William Flinch, who stayed in India during AD 1608-11 gives a detailed description of Ayodhya and the castle of Ramchand (Ramkot), “extensive enough to undertake a search for gold.” Though he does not mention the birthplace of Rama, he gives a detailed account of the place where the ashes of Ram are kept. “Some two miles on the further side of the river in a cave of his with a narrow entrance, but so spacious and full of turnings within that a man may well lose himself there if he taketh not better heed; where it is thought his ashes were buried. Hither resort many from all parts of India, which carry from thence in remembrance certain grains of rice as black as gunpowder which they say have been preserved ever since.” Had the place been considered sacred for being the birthplace of the Lord Rama, it should have become one of the places of pilgrimage. Instead the place where his ashes are kept was considered a place of veneration. Sujan Rai Bhandari, AD 1695

THE KHULASTU-I TAWARIKH, the first geographical account of holy places in India, written by Sujan Rai Bhandari in 1695-96, specifically mentions that the “Mathura temple of Keshav have been destroyed by Aurangzeb who had a Masjid built in its place.” But while describing Ayodhya, he says that, “in Hindu books it is called Ayodhya, the birthplace of Ramchand... As this city was the residence of Ramchand, it is held to be one of the holiest places... In the town there are tombs of Shish (Seth), the son of Lord Adam (peace of God be on him!) and Ayub (Job) the prophet – both places of pilgrimage to the Muhammadans.” Ram Chaturman, AD 1759

ANOTHER WRITER Ram Chaturman, who wrote his Chahar Gulshan in AD 1759-60 describes Ayodhya as “one of the select places of worship, the birthplace of Raja Ramchandar, son of Jasrat (Dasharat) who was one of the ten avatars.” The entire place was considered to be the ruins of Ramachand’s fortress, which included the palace and several other buildings and structures.

Thus, until 220 years after the construction of the Babri Masjid, there was no suggestion anywhere in recorded history that there was a precise site of Ram’s birth, where the holy structure had been destroyed and a Masjid built upon it.

[Courtesy, Nation and the World, New Delhi, Nov. 16, 1992] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.58.169 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Mistakes

Reaction of DEMOLATION?Please,it's demolition.

Deepak (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Joshua Issac (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

Babur

It is generally thought that the Mosque was built by Babur after demolishing the Rama temple, because an inscription on the mosque records his name. Although we have a detailed account of the life of Babur in the form of his diary (Babur Nama), the pages of the relevant period are missing in the diary. But it is also alleged that the Mosque already existed before Babur, who may only have renovated the building.

Part of the paragraph was removed as it had no source and was not neutral. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

A few pages which could become sources: http://www.geocities.com/indianfascism/Babri/babri_masjid.htm http://pakistantimes.net/2005/02/04/kashmir5.htm

Joshua Issac (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't want any bias Sources here would we. I don't think any pakistani sources will be nuteral. please dont add the above as the pakisatnis have always tried to potray India as anti muslim and being a muslim i thank Alla that he made me an indian than a pakistani.

Mannan Burhan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.10.20 (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The second source looks reliable. Information taken from it will be attributed to the source if it is put in the article,; e.g. "According to Pakistani Times, this and that happened, ...". While this source may not be neutral it can still be used to show a viewpoint. Please remember that Pakistan is a country with a lot of people - some may try to portray India as anti-Muslim but I really don't think all of them will.

Riots

I watched a video (by a western source) that documented the Babri mosque demolition, and it claimed that most of the riots that broke out were targeted towards Muslims. I'm not sure if its the truth or not, but might be worth looking into. There's only one sentence here which only says 'riots were broken out' but doesn't give details of who was predominantly affected by the riots, or any other details such as main cities/states of the riots, etc. --digitwoman (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Usage of "Hindu nationalists"

In the section titled, 'Demolition of Babri Masjid', it refers to the mob that demolished the mosque as "Hindu nationalists". I think a more neutral word to use would be "Hindu extremists". Using "hindu nationalists", we're giving the impression that nationalists, who were Hindu, wanted to destroyed it.Sridharrao (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Sridharrao

In the article, the congregation of Hindus in Ayodhya on 6th Dec 1992 is described as a political rally. However, it is beyond doubt and a commonly known fact that the rally was part of a nationwide movement by Hindus to bring awareness and solidify support for a Ram Temple on the disputed structure. The support for the this movement, commonly known as Ram Janmabhoomi Andalon or Ayodhya movement, was widespread. Please remove the reference of political rally from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajmohata (talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Demolition of Babri Masjid

I am surprised to just find a line about Demolition of Babri Masjid, an important event of post-independence, especially considering its aftermath on the very fabric of India, an historical event like this deserves more. Thanks! --Ekabhishek^talk 06:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I believe the Demolition of the Babri Masjid should have its own article. Leftsideend (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I came to this article for the sole purpose of finding out about the demolition. In fact, I would think that for non-Indian audiences, the demolition is probably the point of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.153 (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Some resources

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1942725,00.htmlMughalnz (talk)

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/11/2009112414593176363.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8376755.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/india-babri-mosque-violence-report

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gRlNDzA652rwzZ8TExAc06KiIq_Q

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1124/p06s04-wosc.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aKUCmGe.WP5k

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSDEL486832

http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/200911/2751412.htm?desktop

http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/25/stories/2009112557980100.htm

http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/25/stories/2009112558130100.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

After a few edits over the last couple of days I believe I have made a decent attempt at a cleanup. I believe the peacock terms have been removed and there now a balanced POV. The overall tone of the article favours neither side and presents the facts in a balanced manner. This achieves NPOV, because not every section or line in a contentious article can possibly be NPOV in and of itself. As long as the opposing viewpoints are dealt with clearly and in a fair proportion, then overall NPOV is maintained. What IS lacking here are citations. I also agree it would be good to have a few more details regarding the events on the day of destruction. Mdw0 (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actual Demolition

I have added few referenced facts about the Babri Mosque#DemolitionAdi4094 (talk)

Why have images of the Babri Mosque miraculously disappeared

We had some images linking to the main article. All these images have disappeared from English version but are available elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.179.9 (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC) [1]

These images were found in the older versions of Wikipedia such as the ones hosted here: [2]

Any idea ? Can we sense erasing history here again? 81.100.179.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

Semi-protection

This page is begging for semi-protection. Zealots are using this page to provoke their opponents by making a mess of what is otherwise an informative and useful article. If people cant accept there are two sides to the Ayodhya debate then the barriers WILL go up. Mdw0 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's right!!Adi4094 (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that's not right, I think we should stick to the true sequence of events, even if it is provocative to a section of editors. We are creating an encycolpedia, not a report to appease a section of editors. Main stream media (time.com) mentions Kar Sevaks being responsible for the demolition.[3], they were not participants of political rally that turned violent but they were actually people who went to Ayodhya for the sole purpose of inaugrating the construction of the temple - the ceremony of which is called as "Shilanyas", I think - If you see how BBC describes it, and BBC is just one source there are many other which say that it wasn't a rally but they had "vowed to replace it with a Rama Temple" "Militant Hindus demolished the 16th-century Babri mosque in 1992, vowing to replace it with a Hindu temple to Rama. They say they were justified in destroying the mosque because there used to be a Hindu temple marking Rama's birthplace on that spot before. The mosque was torn down by supporters of the hardline Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP or World Hindu Council), the Shiv Sena party and then-opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). " See http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden/MakingIndiaHindu.htm [4][ http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Babri+demolition+shilanyas+nic+in+site%3Aparliamentofindia.nic.in&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=bZs&sa=2 Indian Parliament Discussions] —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterDunhumble (talk • contribs) 11:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection

{{editsemiprotected}}

In light of the expected verdict on the issue on the 24th of September, and as the issue is controversial, I request semi-protection.

Not done: requests for page protection or unprotection should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

However, after checking, I see that the article is already semi-protected... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mayank6002, 29 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add information regarding verdict of Babri Mosque demolition which is coming out on 30 September 2010. Please add whole story of how it got delayed due to supreme court rulings and then how supreme court of India lifted the ban on verdict which is to be given by Allahabad High Court in 30 September 2010.

Mayank6002 (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added some of this to the Ayodhya debate article. Can you provide more specific points you want to be included, and/or sources for the same? (For the record, the 30 September verdict is not regarding the demolition, but is about the title cases filed ~50 years ago) SPat ^talk 13:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Partial readdition of text

From the first paragraph...

The Babri Mosque (Hindi: बाबरी मस्जिद, Urdu: بابری مسجد, translation: Mosque of Babur), was a mosque in Ayodhya, a city in the Faizabad district of Uttar Pradesh, on Ramkot Hill ("Rama's fort"). It was destroyed in 1992 when a political rally developed into a riot involving 150,000 people,[1] despite a commitment to the Indian Supreme Court by the rally organisers that the mosque would not be harmed.[2][3] [2] organized by the Bharatiya Janata Party and allied organizations.[3] More than 2,000 Muslims were killed in ensuing riots in many major Indian cities including Mumbai and Delhi.[4]

...a part of the sentence is missing before the second footnote from the newindpress.com reference. According from the history it may have been a some sort of collateral damage or was part of a sentence that is supposed to be deleted. Can please someone have it checked? Thanks. E Wing (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

[| Edits done] are not PVO

As explained on your discussion page. Please revert the changes..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 21:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing more than an attempt to insert your POV. The source doesn't say anything about misused excuses etc. Please stop using Wikipedia to push your agenda. —SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand correctly, but there are no justification of bomb blasts and are you not trying to put word "reasons" instead of "excuses"? I can not believe what I am reading. Source here http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/editorial4ijcjs.html.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and if you can not follow our policies and guidelines, this is not the place for you. Find exact sources for each sentence and then discuss here and add them, do not provide any random links or your original research and POV as justifications. Wikipedia articles do not qualify as sources either. —SpacemanSpiff 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the sources are mentioned in Main articles and I don't need to copy sources here. Please explain out how the main sources are random links. Please also explain how justifying bomb blasts on Babari Mosque demolition is not an excuse but is "reason".

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/blast-a-revenge-for-babri-mail/361167/1 please read carefully. Please understand what I am trying to convey is that the matter is mentioned in the main article and there is no need to repeat sources here, and then going about maintaining references when references change and so on. That is why the links. Also please avoid saying justifications of terrorist activities as "reasons", it is against human rights of all those who are innocent and affected badly. To say that it was an excuse is common sense, not POV, and no one can justify bomb blasts on these kind of arguments..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Another source here http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?268602. I can not believe that justifying Bomb blasts and killing people is called "reasonable", or is it a standard of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat, if you want your edits to stand they need to be changed, both in tone and in balance. Your tone is too partisan. Such a tone makes factual items seem NPOV, even when they're not. You need to adjust your tone so that it doesnt try to make one group of people seem like they're all innocent downtrodden angels and the other like they're all terrorist devils. Also, your information is not balanced. You present only one side of a debate and not the other. Even if they were properly referenced, such edits create a politically unbalanced article, and in a controversial article such as this, that imbalance is more than enough reason to remove the edits. This is not a place for winning political arguments, it is somewhere to provide information on the mosque and what happened to it. Any writing on the aftermath should be minimal and cannot be politically partisan. Also, your attitude to referencing is poor. You cannot assume links in a totally different article is sufficient - its not, and never has been. You, yourself, need to provide good and relevant sources for your edits. If you are too lazy to back up your edits properly, you can expect them to be deleted. Mdw0 (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please notice that the changes I have done are only a small aftermath part of the entire page, and does not affect perhaps 99% of the content. As it is, the aftermath in Pakistan/Bangladesh was anti-Hindu and one can not ignore it, and its complete absence is a bit puzzling for me. I will do the referencing properly so the facts are presented well. I am fine with the comments and have not indulged in any edit wars if you notice in the main section. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your addition, as a new section, still needs referencing and appropriate tone. You are correct to say a sentence or two generally doesnt require such stringent application of the citation rules, but when you add a new section and that new section sounds too politically partisan, then it will attract extra attention. If the aftermath is to be mentioned, then it should reflect the all the rioting, in Pakistan and Bangladesh, but also in India. Saying the rioting was all anti-Hindu is not accurate, as this escalation into violence is part of a tit-for-tat struggle thats gone on for centuries. No-one is all innocent or all guilty, but that is what your edits imply, through their tone and lack of balance. It implies a general hostility towards Hindus in general, rather than a reaction against the people who destroyed the mosque - a reaction which then escalated into unacceptable violence on both sides. Your edit cannot be a judgement on the morals or motivations of a particular side in the debate, and its especially problematic if it reflects a political viewpoint. What is needed is a presentation of the facts - not judgement or interpretation or editorial.

I also think the edits to the History section with quotes from the Liberhan Commission need to be further down in the section on the Liberhan Commission's findings. Mdw0 (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you are misquoting me here. I never said riots were anti hindu and 2000 people died - there I have not divided the dead into religions.

It is a fact that reactions in Pakistan and Bangladesh were completely anti-Hindu, and you saying that the tone is one-sided is a reflection of the fact, and I would like to point out that please don't ignore human rights of Hindus, and ignore it by calling it one sided. If you have information, included it in the section with relevant sources. To me, it is obvious that the aftermath in Pakistan and Bangladesh was completely anti-Hindu, and I have provided very reliable sources to prove authenticity. If the contents look one sided to you, please think why before shooting the messenger. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In the section above you said 'the aftermath in Pakistan/Bangladesh was anti-Hindu' as though all Hindus are the same, and that all of the reaction was against all Hindus rather than targetted at the more militant Hindus who wrecked the Babri Mosque. You are proposing to read the mind of every person who reacted against the destruction. There were lots of people who demonstrated against the destruction who were not denying human rights - they were protesting against what they saw as vandalism. Of course there are and were extremist idiots on both sides who take any chance to express their violent tendencies, but they did not constitite 100%. It is most definitely one-sided and unbalanced if you mention only deaths and rioting in Muslim countries and ignore the pro-Hindu anti-Muslim violence which occured in India at the same time. The aftermath of the destruction of the Babri Mosque was a CYCLE of violence. If violence is general and perpetrated by both sides, when you single out a particular group in a particular place for condemnation without mentioning any other incidents then you are telling partial truths. It doesnt matter that what you've put is factual - the selective reporting of certain facts to push a political viewpoint is not NPOV. If you are not motivated by a political viewpoint, I apologise for my assumption, but your edits invite this assumption. Such unbalanced editing is not just inaccurate, it invites retaliation from the other side of the debate. In such a controversial article, balance is crucial and must be maintained. I invite you to reconsider and rewrite your edit to include the more general rioting across the whole region, to reduce the current focus on anti-Hindu Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and to use a more neutral tone. Mdw0 (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, don't try to 'balance' what happened to Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh by what happened to Muslims in India. We are not talking about social niceties, we are talking about riots and there can not be any justification/balance about riots least in anti-Hindu reactions in Islamic countries because of some excuses. I have neither tried to justify riots in India nor outside, and your push for 'balancing' riots by giving more weight to anti-Muslim riots in India, supports this understanding that riots in Pakistan and Bangladesh were justified somehow, or may be I am reading this wrong.

If you have information about anti-Muslims riots or anti-Hindu riots then please mention it in the article. The facts as per me is that reactions in Pakistan and Bangladesh were completely biased against Hindus, and pushing me to 'balance' it is against human rights of Hindus who have suffered in those places. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning something happened doesnt mean you support it or that its justified. Obviously rioting in one place doesnt balance one somewhere else. I'm not talking about morally balancing the riots or their justification - I'm talking about a balanced article, which has a neutral POV. If you present only one side when there is a cycle of violence then you are lying by omission, and you are doing it to further your obvious political viewpoint. The rules disallowing such imbalance on Wikipedia are obvious to anyone who bothers to have even a cursory look. Looking at your talk here and your edits, I'm starting to wonder if you even have the slightest idea of what NPOV means. It means writing from a politically disinterested viewpoint. If you're incapable of that, then your edits cant stand, no matter how truthful you believe them to be. Also, please note this is the Babri Mosque article, and its meant to be about the mosque, not the aftermath. Try editing the Ayodhya debate article or the Demolition of Babri Masjid article where these riots may appropriately have more prominence, and are already balanced by other viewpoints.Mdw0 (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)