Jump to content

Talk:Jai Shri Ram: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 173: Line 173:


A new section is added. But it has no true sources. This new facthunt site seem lie full unreliable sources and a political bias. Should it be allowed?
A new section is added. But it has no true sources. This new facthunt site seem lie full unreliable sources and a political bias. Should it be allowed?
If we have true sources regarding this, then it should be added. But this facthunt and other citations seems fishy. [[User:Edward Zigma|Edward Zigma]] ([[User talk:Edward Zigma|talk]]) 17:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
If we have true sources regarding this, then the section should be added but not with these unreliable sources. But this facthunt and other citations seems fishy. [[User:Edward Zigma|Edward Zigma]] ([[User talk:Edward Zigma|talk]]) 17:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:56, 5 March 2020

WikiProject iconHinduism Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndia Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paragraph on reported attacks on Muslims

This article includes a paragraph on Muslims having been attacked and forced to chant Jai Shri Ram. It is repeatedly being removed, generally without explanation but sometimes with comments such as "hate crime", "fake news" or "hinduphobia", and restored. Should it be Retained or Removed?

  • Retain - I agree with both of the above points of view. Sachi Mohanty 15:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi bbsr (talk • contribs)
  • Retain - But the proper usage of the term should be explained first, before moving on to controversial usages of the term. It is unfair just to report controversies associated with a term, without explaining it's history and normal usage. Varun2048 (Varun2048 14:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. But I am going to add a section about historical usage of this term too. It is very unfair to just have a section on the misuse or controversies arising out of this term and not have one on its intended meaning. Doing so will also reduce edit wars. Jamailfaroukh (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Own notes

Existence of the slogan in any significant manner, prior to BJP/VHP introduction

Did this expression even exist in any significant manner, prior to BJP/VHP introduction? I think the only focus of this article, (which I am going to write over the course of next few days), will be about folks from BJP using it as a war-cry against Muslims/Christians. I am seeing nearly nothing in scholarly literature, otherwise. ∯WBGconverse 16:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winged Blades of Godric it is in the same league as Jai Mata Di, Jai Hanuman, Jai Ganesh, and are basically religious slogans that have existed for centuries and used in temples/religious processions/rituals. I have created another section below to discuss the same topic. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add a section about historical usage of this slogan. It seems quite unfair to have only current day misuse of this slogan on the page. Jamailfaroukh (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Gargi college sexual harassment incident.

I have added a well cited 5 news links which is removed by an editor Harshil169 ,(despite various warnings to him to stay away and open discussions if he has any problem) telling every single 5 citation as unreliable. Requesting @DBigXray: to take a look. Edward Zigma (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to engage in discussion with you but India times, Lallantop and National Herald are not reliable sources and that’s fact. Also, just yesterday, it’s decided that we’re not going to add each and every incident but only notable one. That’s why I removed the content.— Harshil want to talk? 06:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a notable incident reported by various media houses of India for Aajtak to paper portals such as Dainik Jagran. You can check yourself. It is not a normal incident and the usage of such slogans in such cases make it noteworthy. If you need links to check notability of the incident, do let me know. Edward Zigma (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to understand one thing. We are not newspaper. Your content is challenged. Follow WP:BRD strictly and don’t restore it until consensus is reached.— Harshil want to talk? 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3, Winged Blades of Godric, DBigXray, and My Lord: please try to let this user understand. I’m in long conflict with them and they’re not understanding about RS and not news even a bit and starts edit warring.— Harshil want to talk? 08:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didnt even involve in discussion. You are always like your decision is final and its a line of stone which cannot and should not be changed. Dude this is not wikipedia works. First you denied telling not RS which is your old habit to remove anything which you dont want against your agenda, then when I literally cited 5 and even more citations you are telling this is not news.This may or may not be used is other thing but the use of slogan and it happened is other. Try to think rationally instead of putting a biased view of the issue.As everyone knows here you and I were warned a lot of times to stop this behaviour and I never involved in your edits after that even if you continued with your biased norms. I am citing proper article and that slogan was reported by many media houses now and I cited 5 of them. Instead of involving in a fruitful discussiom that why it is wrong you start to keep reverting my edits not even open any discussion. I always open discussion if there is any problem in it. And after last involvement I refrained myself from that totally but you did not.You keep reverting my edits and bully other editors and their edits instead of giving them a chance. And the matter of incident, for that I want to say this incident is of huge notability and many politicians have commented on it and asked for strict action. How could mass harassment if this type be a small news for yo???I seriously request @Kautilya3, Winged Blades of Godric, DBigXray, and My Lord: to take a look as this editor is always behind me whatever edit I do. From here to wikimedia commons he keeps reverting and involving instead of tellimg why its wrong. This is a serious bullying for me now Edward Zigma (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text was incomprehensible; I have removed it for that reason if no other. You are both edit warring: I suggest you work out some meaningful text here before reinstating it. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want your WP:3PO on the matter. If you want to change the wordings you can do that.Edward Zigma (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been on my watchlist for a while because it has repeatedly had sourced content, which presumably offends certain religious sensibilities, removed from it . However, that removal was - IMO - almost always censorship by POV-warriors. The page has been protected to prevent it. Right now there are a lot of editors working on the page, and I credit the majority of them with far more knowledge of the subject than I have, so I don't plan to get too much further involved at the moment - though it seems clear to me that there are still significant attempts being made to sanitise this page on purely religious grounds, and that should not be tolerated. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be honest and say we should remove all sections except Jai_Shri_Ram#History and merge that section into the lead as well. Concerning issue is that we don't need to specify every single incident where these 3 words were used since the lead is already clear about the types of incidents where they were used. I agree with Harshil619 that we are disregarding WP:NOTNEWS by keeping such sections which are all about the very recent events than providing overall description of this slogan. The sources on lead appear to have done. ML 911 11:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why should we neglect the other usage of this term when its clear apart from religious uses this term is used in provoking riots, lynchings and now in sexual harassment. They slogan although religious is being used in various different places which I have already told.Edward Zigma (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it must not look like if you shouted this slogan while "provoking riots, lynchings and now in sexual harassment", then you can get yourself publicized on this page. Such information is not encyclopedic. ML 911 10:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My Lord, Please add other notable uses of this slogan as well. That would be an acceptable way of balancing it instead of edit warring to censor valid article improvements. DBigXrayᗙ 10:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (responding to ping) Folks please calm down. The articles on slogans are expected to include notable uses of the slogan. Please see other articles of slogans. This indeed is a religious slogan and I see no reason why notable uses should be removed from this article. Regarding the objection of Harshil, I don't this this event is non notable, it has its own wikipedia article and has received widespread coverage. So I support to include this into the article. Edward Zigma Can you create a subsection below and add your proposed version of the content along with reliable sources as  Dorsetonian mentioned, It might need some copy edit. We can also take and include suggestions from all on the final version before adding it back, to avoid edit wars. regards. DBigXrayᗙ 07:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My Lord undo the edit citing that no consent has been made.Edward Zigma (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My Lord, Edward Zigma and others, Here is the proposed version by Zigma copy edited by me. Please share your comments to improve this. After incorporating everyone's suggestions. This will be added back into the article. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You really expect me to accept an unsourced section on "religous"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, good catch, ref added. next ? DBigXrayᗙ 12:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News isn't saying that "Jai Shri Ram" is a greeting. It lists related greetings, "Ram Ram", "Jai Sia Ram" and "Jai Ram Ji ki" (all of which I have no trouble with). The Economic Times blog post is wooly. It is vaguely alluding to such a greeting, without actually providing any evidence. Plenty of sources conspicously omit "Jai Shri Ram".[1][2] I don't believe it was a greeting. Nor is it particularly "religious". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, we have a decent page on Ram Nam, which also omits it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All right Kautilya3, I am removing it until solid sources are found for it. that would need to be discussed in a seperate section. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Little words matter. It is "Shreeee Ram", the great Ram, the victor Ram, the hero Ram, the Sanskrit Ram, not every man's Ram. The VHP's Ram. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, agree, I wasn't really aware of these subtle differences before I read this print article. It was an eye opener indeed. DBigXrayᗙ 14:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one seems good. But we can change the use from "Was used" "is used" in devotional songs coz some good people still exist who use these religious slogans and give devotional message.Edward Zigma (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. lets wait for ML and Harshil to respond if they have any suggestions to improve this. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@All, Since no one else commented and the folks who have are ok with the proposed version. I have added this to the article, with one minor change that the 2 headers are merged into one. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VHP's Ram

Here is a scholar trying to explain the meaning of "Jai Shri Ram":

The formula was in fact a modification of an existing greeting; villagers and townspeople might greet each other, Jai Ram ji ki, or Jai Siyaram, the latter name referring to his consort Sita as well. For the most part, the words were spoken softly. Beginning with an emphasis on "Jai," and continuing onto 'Ram," the words would taper off into a quiet intonation that was almost a mutter, in relatively peaceable mutual acknowledgment or recognition. A sample greeting might be: JAI Ram ji ki. In the VHP form, the words were sanskritized, with the colloquial Siyaram giving way to the more formal Shri Ram. Karsevaks uttered the words loudly and defiantly, as a quasi-military salute rather than as a greeting or a shared prayer. So that now, it would be rendered: JAI SHRI RAM! The clear enunciation of each word and the high pitch of their utterance indicated not an invocation of conventional sentiment, but rather the statement of an explicit difference from convention or the emergence of a new one. The expectation of having the statement repeated in return signaled not greetings returned so much as the acknowledgment of this difference. Those whom I encountered uttering this cry were usually young men, dressed relatively fashionably in baggy trousers and shirts, and often adorned with saffron bands around their foreheads or arms. Being greeted in this way, one was immediately put on trial, in a sense, for they expected a reply. And in replying, one became aware of the loudness of the report, either by the effort required to match it or by one's failure to do so. In socio-linguistic terms, the difference in the VHP greeting marked dialectal variation rather than register variation, highlighting not use, but the user, as belonging to a different social group.[34] One college lecturer said that the locals were now afraid to utter the greeting: the meaning was no longer theirs, it had become inflected with alien intonations.[35] This was only the most superficial level of a presence that some residents described as highly coercive.[3]

I think it is ridiculous to describe this as having anything to do with Hinduism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed version

Uses
Violent incidents

In 1992, during riots and Demolition of Babri Masjid,the same slogans were raised.[4][5]

In 2019, before his lynching, Tabrez Ansari was forced by the mob to chant religious slogans "Jai Shree Ram" and "Jai Hanuman".[6]

On February 2020, in an incident of mass molestation and sexual harassment at Gargi College, the victims of harassment alleged that the perpetrators were chanting the slogan of "Jay Shree Ram"[7]

References

  1. ^ Anuradha Goyal, Namaste! Learn 20 More Ways to Greet in India – Surprised?, inditates.com, 26 August 2019.
  2. ^ Rajani Choudhary, Greeting the Hindu Way, Hinduism News, 16 January 2019.
  3. ^ Rajagopal, Arvind (2001), Politics After Television: Hindu Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India, Cambridge University Press, pp. 222–223, ISBN 978-0-521-64839-4
  4. ^ May 21, Ravi Shankar; December 31, 2013 ISSUE DATE:; July 25, 1992UPDATED:; Ist, 2013 13:22. "Babri Masjid demolition: When men in saffron bandanas struck screaming the name of Ram". India Today. {{cite web}}: |first4= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ D'Costa, Jasmine (2017). Matter of Geography. Mosaic Press. ISBN 978-1-77161-247-0. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  6. ^ "The Hindu chant that became a murder cry". July 10, 2019 – via www.bbc.com.
  7. ^ "'They shouted Jai Shri Slogans': CPI's women's association on thugs involved in Gargi College 'mass molestation' case". Free Press Journal.

Removed references

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][a]

I removed this massive collection of redundant references. Feel free to reincorporate them into the article. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References and notes

  1. ^ Compare with the usage of Allāhu akbar in Islamic radicalism, over here.
  1. ^ Suresh, Mayur (2019-02-01). "The social life of technicalities: 'Terrorist' lives in Delhi's courts" (PDF). Contributions to Indian Sociology. 53 (1): 72–96. doi:10.1177/0069966718812523. ISSN 0069-9667.
  2. ^ Menon, Nivedita (2002). "Surviving Gujarat 2002". Economic and Political Weekly. 37 (27): 2676–2678. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4412315.
  3. ^ Engineer, Asghar Ali (1992). "Sitamarhi on Fire". Economic and Political Weekly. 27 (46): 2462–2464. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4399118.
  4. ^ Nussbaum, Martha C. (2008-11-01). "The Clash Within: Democracy and the Hindu Right". Journal of Human Development. 9 (3): 357–375. doi:10.1080/14649880802236565. ISSN 1464-9888.
  5. ^ Staples, James (2019-11-02). "Blurring Bovine Boundaries: Cow Politics and the Everyday in South India". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 42 (6): 1125–1140. doi:10.1080/00856401.2019.1669951. ISSN 0085-6401.
  6. ^ Gupta, Charu; Sharma, Mukul (1996). "Communal constructions: media reality vs real reality". Race & Class. 38 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1177/030639689603800101. ISSN 0306-3968.
  7. ^ Austin, Dennis; Lyon, Peter (1993). "The Bharatiya Janata Party of India". Government and Opposition. 28 (1): 36–50. doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.1993.tb01304.x. ISSN 0017-257X. JSTOR 44484547.
  8. ^ Ramaseshan, Radhika (1990). "The Press on Ayodhya". Economic and Political Weekly. 25 (50): 2701–2704. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4397088.
  9. ^ Sarkar, Sumit (1999). "Conversions and Politics of Hindu Right". Economic and Political Weekly. 34 (26): 1691–1700. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4408131.
  10. ^ Sarkar, Sumit (1993). "The Fascism of the Sangh Parivar". Economic and Political Weekly. 28 (5): 163–167. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4399339.
  11. ^ Ludden, David; Ludden, Professor of History David (April 1996). Contesting the Nation: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-1585-4.
  12. ^ Rambachan, Anantanand (2017-04-20). "The Coexistence of Violence and Nonviolence in Hinduism". Journal of Ecumenical Studies. 52 (1): 96–104. doi:10.1353/ecu.2017.0001. ISSN 2162-3937.
  13. ^ Gudipaty, Nagamallika (2017), "Television, Political Imagery, and Elections in India", in Ngwainmbi, Emmanuel K. (ed.), Citizenship, Democracies, and Media Engagement among Emerging Economies and Marginalized Communities, Springer International Publishing, pp. 117–145, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56215-5_6, ISBN 978-3-319-56215-5
  14. ^ Mazumdar, Sucheta (1995). "Women on the March: Right-Wing Mobilization in Contemporary India". Feminist Review (49): 1–28. doi:10.2307/1395323. ISSN 0141-7789. JSTOR 1395323.
  15. ^ Schultz, Kai; Raj, Suhasini (5 January 2020). "Masked Men Attack Students in Rampage at University in New Delhi". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 January 2020.
  16. ^ Brosius, Christiane (2005). "Hindutva's Media Phantasmagorias". Empowering visions : the politics of representation in Hindu nationalism. Anthem Press. p. 95. ISBN 1-84331-134-8. OCLC 52566622.
  17. ^ Brosius, Christiane (2007). "The Unwanted Offering. Ubiquity And Success Of Failure In A Ritual Of The Hindu Right". In Hüsken, Ute (ed.). When rituals go wrong mistakes, failure and the dynamics of ritual. Numen. Vol. 115. Brill. ISBN 978-90-474-1988-4. OCLC 928981707.
  18. ^ Ghassem-Fachandi, Parvis (2009-08-01). "Bandh in Ahmedabad". Violence: Ethnographic Encounters. Berg. ISBN 978-1-84788-418-3.
  19. ^ Salam, Ziya Us. ""Jai Shri Ram": The new battle cry". Frontline. Retrieved 2020-01-10.
  20. ^ Daniyal, Shoaib. "'Jai Shri Ram' might be a new slogan – but the use of Ram as a political symbol is 800 years old". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2020-01-10.
  21. ^ DelhiJuly 13, Prabhash K. Dutta New; July 13, 2019UPDATED; Ist, 2019 12:28. "Jai Shri Ram: A slogan that changed political contours of India". India Today. Retrieved 2020-01-10. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

The expression attracted notability due to BJP ?

The expression attracted notability after the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) embraced the slogan in the late 20th century,

The article stated this and I have copy edited to state.

The expression was used by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which embraced the slogan in the late 20th century

Since I don't really believe that BJP made this slogan notable. It is a religious slogan used by Hindus long before BJP and Hindutva were created by a few people. If someone believes I have made a mistake they are welcome to produce reliable sources that support the line. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree This slogan was made internationally infamous due to its misuse by right-wing groups. The extent of misuse was such that right-wing groups masculinized it from the original Jai Sia Ram (Hail lord Rama and Sita) to Jai Sri Ram (Hail lord Rama).[1] I think that firstly, we need to cover its religious significance in the article. The lead section shouldn't start by saying The expression was used be the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party...as a war-cry, for perpetration of communal atrocities against people of other faiths, as it currently does. This will be WP:UNDUE.— Vaibhavafro 💬 08:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "From Jai Siya Ram to Jai Shri Ram: How Ayodhya erased Sita". The Print. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
User:Vaibhavafro thanks for the comments. the word you were looking for is "perverted", that should indeed be added. Yes, I agree with the suggestions that the stub must start with the religious connections. Accordingly I have updated the opening line. DBigXrayᗙ 08:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Vaibhavafro: I would like to point out that when you say that Jai Sri Ram is masculinized, you may not actually be correct. The Sri in Jai Sri Ram is not the word Shri used in Modern Hindi as honorific, but actually another name of Hindu Goddess Lakshmi. Per Ramayana, Sita was avatar of Goddess Lakshmi. The source which you have given is a very recent one, and totally ignores this. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 10:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sarvatra, That is new to me. Can you please add a RS to your comment. DBigXrayᗙ 10:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say for sure if I'd able to find an RS for religious texts, but I'll try to find one. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 11:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sarvatra for that info. I didn’t know that before.— Vaibhavafro 💬 13:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am going to be watching like a hawk for any unsourced OR being peddled here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TIME magazine reference.

There is dispute about the inclusion of a quote attributed to TIME magazine. The objection is It is not a piece of news. It is an opinion. Opinions do not become facts. Fox example: HITLER OPINED THAT ARYAN RACE WAS SUPERIOR BUT THAT WAS JUST THAT AN OPINION NOT FACT.(and of course not true.) Were that an accurate summary of the situation they would have a point - but it is not. TIME (a fact-checking, reliable publication) published as fact an 85-year-old woman was burned alive while the mob outside chanted Jai Shri Ram, a Hindu devotional that has become a racist dog whistle against Muslims, it did not write Rana Ayyub opined that an 85-year-old woman was burned alive while the mob outside chanted Jai Shri Ram, a Hindu devotional that has become a racist dog whistle against Muslims. I therefore believe it should stand. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dorsetonian, I do not have a problem with the mention that an 85-year-old woman was burned alive while the mob outside chanted Jai Shri Ram. That is a fact. I have problem with the part Jai Shri Ram, a Hindu devotional that has become a racist dog whistle against Muslims. This is not a fact. It is an opinion. Therefore I am asking for removal of this part only. Keep the part where it was used against the woman but to mention that it is a racist slur is derogatory and reflects badly on the religious slogan that it is. Further, Rana Ayuub is not an editor for the TIME. SHE HAS WRITTEN THIS ARTICLE IN THE 'IDEAS' COLUMN OF THE TIME WHICH MEANS THAT THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE PERSONAL AND NOT OF TIME. Therefore the part TIME commented that the slogan had become a "racist dog whistle" against Muslims is not right. It is Rana Ayuub who has such opinion and not TIME.Trojanishere (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere[reply]
I think that if TIME publishes a piece it's not entirely unreasonable to say that "TIME commented that..." (though definitely not "TIME holds the view that...") but to avoid any ambiguity I have added the author to the quote. A reasonable compromise? Dorsetonian (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on March 3rd, 2020

Two requests, actually. I'm sure I won't regret wading into this.

1.) The word "thugs" is extraordinarily biased and possibly racist, regardless of who it's describing. (In the USA, it's widely accepted that a white person calling people of color "thugs" is making an inarguably racist statement.) Even though neither source uses it, it's deployed here in Wikipedia's voice, a pretty strong violation of WP:NPOV. I would say "rioters" would be an appropriate replacement.

2.) The Time article says

"In one, an 85-year-old woman was burned alive while the mob outside chanted Jai Shri Ram..."

That's used to source this

"In one instance, an 85-year old woman was burnt alive by a mob chanting 'Jai Shri Ram'."

This was added with this edit from User:Kautilya3, who seems to have copied, pasted, then made a few alterations (including a grammatical error in removing the hyphen between "year" and "old") when they should have read the sentence, considered what exactly it was saying, then typed out a detailed paraphrase of it here. That's borderline plagiarism and it's definitely a problem. One of the changes, where the entity that perpetrated this crime isn't named in the source ("burned alive while the mob outside chanted") but is named here ("burnt alive by a mob chanting"), is a clear violation of WP:RS and arguably WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The entire sentence could probably be excised per WP:NOTNEWS and given the ongoing contentiousness at this entire topic area, that's what I would do and why I would do it. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Re 1), I will change "thugs". Re 2), I don't see a specific edit request. You are partly contesting the accuracy of the content and partly its significance to the topic. I don't agree with either of those, but we can continue discussing. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: For the specific change I'd like to see made, please re-read the second part of my request. It's absolutely in there in plain language. It's not up for dispute that an 85-year-old woman was killed. Do you have a reliable source for who did it? 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Yes, I have added a more detailed source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sections on mythological and other usage

Added sections on usage of the term in events other than violence. Without these, the article seems too focussed on the usage of this term in controversial incidents. Please make edits and improve the section but don't have some edit-war over this too. Jamailfaroukh (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image for the article

One image is already on Commons and one I uploaded just now. do any of these seem suitable for the article? DTM (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ram in Ayodhya
Does anyone else have any suitable images. I guess more than one can be used, the article is slowly increasing in size for two or more. DTM (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background

The history of the Rama cult is pretty complicated, and Sheldon Pollock's views are quite speculative. Yes, the growth of Rama cult coincided with the Muslim rule, but historians say that it didn't lead to any Hindu-Muslim conflict. The Muslim governors of Ayodhya were quite happy to support the Rama cult throughout the centuries. Only after Aurangzeb did the problems start. Even then, many sociological observers say that "Ram Ram" was equally a greeting used by the Hindus and Muslims of the region. The nawabs of Awadh again supported Rama worship in Ayodhya, and the temples mushroomed precisely during their time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide RS for your claims. As of Pollock's views, they seem notable enough to be included here. If any other reliable authority disputes them, his/her views can be added too. Bharatiya29 12:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are loads of sources given on the Ayodhya dispute page, the most important one being Henry Bakker's Ayodhya.
Note that the "Jai Shri Ram" slogan does not appear in Pollock's paper. Please share the exact quotes from either the paper or Daniyal's op-ed that support the content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The exact slogan might not appear, but the use of Ram's name as a war cry is still pretty relevant to this article. I am not being able to make a complete sense of your comment. What has the nawabs' support to Ram worship has to do with this article? I can see that you have a good knowledge of this matter, so please elaborate. Bharatiya29 13:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can provide a quote that substantiates "Ram's name as a war cry". At the moment, the content failed verification. I intend to delete it after giving you or any one else a chance to substantiate it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya - who is a historian unlike Pollock, a literary scholar - wrote a full length critique of Pollock's essay. It is unfortunately not available online. Simply put, Pollock had cherry-picked his evidence and exaggerated its significance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in violent incidents

This section is full of trivial mentions about the slogan. Unless such sources can be found which significantly cover the slogan's usage in violent scenarios, this section should be removed as per WP:NOTDIARY. Bharatiya29 12:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reinstated the "Fake cases alleging usage of Jai Shri Ram" section. As long as a consensus is not achieved regarding how these two sections should be treated, it is better to present the whole picture in order to maintain a neutral and balanced point of view. Bharatiya29 12:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are aplenty. Some 20-odd scholarly sources are listed a few sections above. Please feel to peruse them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "fake cases" section.

A new section is added. But it has no true sources. This new facthunt site seem lie full unreliable sources and a political bias. Should it be allowed? If we have true sources regarding this, then the section should be added but not with these unreliable sources. But this facthunt and other citations seems fishy. Edward Zigma (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jai_Shri_Ram&oldid=944094293"