Jump to content

Talk:Ram Mandir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.39.84.90 (talk) at 01:28, 22 January 2024 (→ASI report: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Coordinates

Can anyone add the Map coordinates for temple? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.214.118.98 (talk)

 Already done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

@The Herald: Why this lead should not talk about 1949? It is essential to mention that the monument became an attraction to Hindu devotees much before demolition. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a de-facto temple since 1949 and the lead should say that. The proposed wording had no issue. NavjotSR (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
De facto, it was Ram Janmabhoomi till the ground breaking ceremony and Ram Mandir, with the proper meaning, started with the construction of the temple. This also justifies the creation of the article only after the temple construction was announced. Hence, the history section can cover the disputes and other things leading upto it, but lede must cover an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents (per WP:LEDE). Also MOS:DONTTEASE says it should be written in encyclopedic style and not tease it. Devotees gathering the next day in Ram Janmabhoomi is notable in the lede of that article. For Ram Mandir, it should give an idea about the creation of the temple via the verdict, summarise the Babri Masjid dispute and then focus more on the construction, ground breaking, opening, and finally on the controversies. History section can throw light on the ancient, medieval and recent past and then can showcase the 1949 gatherings. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is required to cover major points of the article. The lead already notes "The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built after the demolition an existing non-Islamic structure."
Let me know if you are fine with changing it to: "The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built after the demolition an existing non-Islamic structure. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the Islamic structure in 1949 before it was destroyed in 1992." Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds better and concise enough. Just fix that grammatically and you may add it to the lede, with references of course. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • SpunkyGeek & Abhishek0831996, kindly discuss here about the controversy copyedit before reverting again and violating 3RR as you both are approaching that threshold soon. Thanks.

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Abhishek0831996: The controversy section you have added here was copyedited today and I found various sections and sentences that needs clarification. Multiple vague terms and words are used left and right and the sources are also very dubious. Kindly give MOS:WTW a read before adding such segments into the controversy section of a contentious topic. Most of the arguments are supported by one source only (which included WP:TOI) and we need verifications from multiple independent sources per the WP:Verifiability policy. Please fix those as soon as possible, else they have to be removed per WP:MOS, WP:INDY, WP:ONESOURCE and WP:VERIFY. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Herald, would it be possible and rather appropriate that the line "The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE after the demolition of an existing non-Islamic structure. " be reworked to "The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE after the demolition of an existing structure which according to ASI was "non-Islamic."
    I'm not personally stating whether it was or wasn't, but the issue has not been fully agreed upon.[1][2][3] StarkReport (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that means we are putting too much undue and unnecessary weight on ASI, whose reports are challenged anyways. ASI reports are mentioned in the next paragraph, and I don't think that change is needed anymore. Maybe you can rework this onto the ASI crticism sentence after the verdict sentence, with references. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Archeologist Who Observed Dig Says No Evidence of Temple Under Babri Masjid". The Wire. December 6, 2022. Archived from the original on 1 April 2023. Retrieved January 17, 2024.
  2. ^ Pankaj, Jayant (December 6, 2021). "Rama Janmabhoomi Issue: Exposing the myth behind the narrative". The International. Archived from the original on 29 May 2023. Retrieved January 17, 2024.
  3. ^ Habib, Irfan (3 January 2011). History & Judgement of Allahabad High Court in Ramjanmabhumi and Babri Masjid Case. Retrieved 8 August 2020. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Brief mention of the critique in the lede.

@SpunkyGeek, do note that the Lede cannot delve into the intricate details of the entire dispute. I have written about the dispute and criticisms to be as concise as possible. StarkReport (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhishek0831996, Respectfully, in actuality, the dispite regarding Ram Mandir is highly WP:Relevant and WP:Notable. It is integral to the temple's historical narrative.
Since we have mentioned the claims of ASI which were strongly contested by archaeologists and other people alike, not mentioning about the disagreements even briefly, would violate WP:Balance and WP:NPOV.
Kindly note that I intially only wrote "However, the ASI report has been heavily disputed by critics." It was only after the insistence of SpunkyGeek, I extended it by describing the dispute regarding the temple.
The WP:ReliableSources and its DUE nature merits its presence on the Lede.
@The Herald, can you take a look at this? StarkReport (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with StarkReport and SpunkyGeek edits. The ASI critique is relevant and must be included in lede for NPOV. Any deletion to the lede further must be discussed in the talk page for consensus. @Abhishek0831996: Please don't remove well cited portions from lede when the additions are under discussion in talk page. It will be considered as WP:disruptive editing. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


SpunkyGeek Hasn't shared his opinion yet. I find the long criticism of ASI report to be undue because this criticism is not only futile but also not central to this subject. It should be removed. NavjotSR (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that the sentence as a whole is undue for the lead. Right now it is bigger than the need even if there had to be no objection against it. I would reduce the current sentence to just "However, ASI claims were heavily disputed by critics," for now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism section, in itself, is relevant. But the length is something that's bothering me too. The discussion in the section above, about Babri Masijd also was putting too much undue weight on ASI and it's report. So, like Abhishek said, a single sentence, describing the ASI report critique, with less than 15 words should suffice, to avoid undue weight here also. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NavjotSR, The subject matter is about a temple whose history is disputed and its historical narrative is inherently tied to it. Hence, it is more WP:Due than things like "alleged misuse of donation" issues. Claiming that it is "futile" unfortunately demonstrates lack of grasp.
@Abhishek0831996, The thing is, there is a two warring sides to this temple issue. One side states that the archaeological evidence supports their view, while the other side states that it actually discredits the opposing view and even supports their own. Now we already have given enough weight to one side as "The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE after the demolition of an existing non-Islamic structure." as well as "In 2019, the Supreme Court of India delivered the verdict to give the disputed land to Hindus for construction of a temple, while Muslims would be given land elsewhere to construct a mosque. The court referenced a report from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as evidence suggesting the presence of a structure beneath the demolished Babri Masjid, that was found to be non-Islamic."
Now even after this, not mentioning about the dispute would be in stark contrast to WP:Balance.
It's like: "According to xxx scientists (or, in this case, archaeologists), this is the case. However, xxx scientists (or, in this case, archaeologists) disagree with that view and criticize it." StarkReport (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That critics response should be removed. Supreme Court verdict is final word. After that other narrative created by news portal doesn't matter. Also the controversies are added in header, no need to mention it in lead. Critique response should be in 2019 Ayodhya Dispute verdict, not at temple page and absolutely not in lead. Themodifie7 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"other narrative created by news portal", Kindly read my above response, the scepticism is held by archaeologists and historians who are Wikipedia's authoritative source. No one is arguing that whether the Supreme Court verdict will be changed or not, just that the foundational premises that justified the decree, is doubted by experts.
The only WP:Due thing is missing from this article, is a section under Controversies area, that details "Historical and Archaeological Controversy" regarding Hindu and Muslims claims, and Babri Masjid Demolition and the Communal Tensions. All of which can be written in a single section compactly.
Please bear in that that the NPOV policy is non-negotiable, and we are taking a significant risk by contemplating removal based on selectively choosing parts of the narrative.
Here are additional sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] StarkReport (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no argument that it shouldn't be included. The critique must be included for the NPOV and DUE, especially when maintaining a neutral point of view is one of five pillars. That part is non negotiable and Supreme Court of India doesn't have the final say in Wikipedia. Any criticism must be added, without doubt. The only argument is about the length of the sentence. As I said, a maximum of 15 words or less than that should suffice for the ASI findings criticism. Also, it is not an argument created by any news portals, but by scientists and historians. Since they are supported by various independent sources that are reliable and are connected to the verdict that made the existence of the temple possible, it must be included. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely irrelevant claims that came after supreme court Verdict. And it's been added in lead in Ram Mandir page while it doesn't require here if it really matter it should be in 2019 Supreme Court Verdict page. It wasn't discussed before adding, why to discuss before removing it. Themodifie7 (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still of the view that the criticism should be removed as a whole. Will still wait for the view of SpunkyGeek. For now, I have shortened the criticism per above discussion. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhishek0831996 exactly my point, sources aren't reliable and it's biased. Also recently Irfan Habib accepted there was temple at that site. How can it be relevant anymore. Also the last paragraph of controversies needs to be removed from lead. There is already a header for this. Themodifie7 (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Themodifie7, Based on your cherrypicking, we might just remove everything that goes against the state-owned narrative StarkReport (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry picking?
After choosing articles and authors who are infamous for their biasness towards one perticular religion to validate your point?
Insane. 103.36.80.253 (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Herald, @Abhishek0831996, Given varying heated debates and contrasting claims about whether a Hindu, Islamic, or "non-Islamic" structure existed beneath the site, it seems prudent to reconsider and refine the wording of the first line as: The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE after the demolition of an existing structure whose origins is debated(or, with controversy over its origins). StarkReport (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. See WP:RGW. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Ayodhya dispute and Archaeology of Ayodhya. And also kindly read WP:RGW's "Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do." which is exactly what is proposed above.

And we have a wealth of "information that is verifiable using reliable sources." StarkReport (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no position on the ASI critique at the moment; but I have removed the claim of demolition from the lead. There is no consensus among reliable sources that this was the case. There is genuine disagreement as to the nature of the previous structure, but please note that even many sources which accept the existence of a temple that predated the mosque do not support the claim of demolition. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Avikunthak, Ashish. "B.B. Lal and the Making of Hindutva Archaeology". Retrieved January 21, 2024.
  2. ^ Varghese, Rachel A. "Archaeology for the courtroom: the Ayodhya Case and the fashioning of a hybrid episteme". Retrieved January 21, 2024.
  3. ^ Etter, Anne-Julie. "Creating Suitable Evidence of the Past? Archaeology, Politics, and Hindu Nationalism in India from the End of the Twentieth Century to the Present". Retrieved January 21, 2024.
  4. ^ Jaya, Menon. "Was There a Temple under the Babri Masjid? Reading the Archaeological 'Evidence'". Retrieved January 21, 2024.

In 2023 Ram Mandir at Ayodhya was the theme of the Durga Puja Pandal at Santosh Mitra Square Sarbojonin Durgotsav committee in Kolkata it could be added in popular Culture. MultyMetaverses (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.outlookindia.com/national/in-pictures-ram-mandir-themed-durga-puja-pandal-in-kolkata-draws-massive-crowd-photos-326395 MultyMetaverses (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough for the article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://m.thewire.in/article/communalism/ayodhya-ram-temple-durga-puja-kolkata MultyMetaverses (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please also mention Kolkata alongside Santosh Mitra Square and that the replica is a Pandal (that houses the deity) and D in Durga should be capital as it is a proper noun. MultyMetaverses (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

Remove the word hypothesized. It is not hypothesized birthplace. 2409:4042:4D30:4BCA:3069:6E2F:982B:13AD (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and maintains a neutral point of view. Also, refer to WP:RNPOV. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald (Benison) Actually, it is surprising to see that in the Bethlehem article , the world 'hypothized' is not used when mentioning about Jesus of Nazereth. Here is the copied sentence from that article, In the New Testament, the city is identified as the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth. So, I have changed this sentence mentioning the Hindu scripture, Valmiki Ramayana, a great epic of India. If this edit is not acceptable then the same principle has to be applied in the Bethlehem article as well. The intent of Wikipedia is to provide free, unbiased information and not to create doubt in the minds of readers who happen to be Hindus who constitute nearly 1 billion of the world population. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges, mate. You may take it upto the talk page of Bethlehem article for any change you need. Also, Historicity of Jesus is not doubted by scholars and hence Bethlehem is not a hypothesized place of birth. Kindly find reliable references for your argument and then we can change the wordings of the lead. Kindly don't bring up personal views and religious views into the talk page for discussion. Refer to WP:RNPOV for more clear understanding. Thanks.
The Herald (Benison) Rama is of much anterior period than Jesus and therefore the historicity as per today's standards need not to exist. Hindus believe so as it is mentioned in their holy scriptures. So is Christian beliefs that Jesus 'got lifted to Heaven' or Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) 'splitting the moon'. To a rational mind, any religion seem to be superstition and ridiculous. Whether it is Jesus or Rama, these are part of religious BELIEFS of particular group of people, Hindus and Christians, respectively. Wikipedia is there to provide information neutrally to readers and not to create doubts or hurt sentiments of people. Be it Islamophia, Hinduphobia or Christianphobia, Wikipedia is not a place of them. When using the word hypothesized, provide a proper reference that is neutral. I am re-editing the article as per Wikipedia guidelines. Let the matter be settled by Wikipedia administrators if required. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term has been added after discussing in the talk page before, years ago (check the archives and page history) and is from the reliable source, BBC. Any addition or removal will be considered as disruptive editing and must be discussed for consensus in talk page. Also, this is a Contentious topic. Kindly keep that in mind. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald (Benison) If the birthplace of Rama was discussed and settled then why the article on Rama don't have this information? Why not replace the word hypothesized with 'As per Hindu beliefs' or 'as per Valmiki Ramayana'? How does this edit can be disruptive editing? For your information, the Supreme Court of India relied on much better neutral and valid sources than the BBC while dealing with the Ayodhya dispute. Do you mean the Supreme Court made a mistake in taking note that millions of Hindus believed for many centuries that Ayodhya was the birthplace of Rama? Even foreigners who visited India during the Middle Ages noticed the reverence of Hindus for Ayodhya and the surroundings of Masjid-i-Janmasthan.
It is better to have a genuine debate on this issue to make sure that Wikipedia stands as a neutral platform rather than promoting Hinduphobia, Islamophobia, etc. As this is a Contentious topic, how come one can come conclusion that Ayodhya is a hypothesized birthplace of Rama? Many Hindu sages and saints such as Valmiki, Tulsidas, Bhadrachala Ramadasu, Tyagaraja etc have mentioned in their devotional works about Rama's birthplace. Even Mahatma Gandhi was an ardent devotee of Rama. It is important to separate the political discourse around Ayodhya from its pre-eminent spiritual importance among Hindus. Even there is no consensus on the status of Jesus of Nazareth among Abrahamic religions. He is God in Christianity, a Prophet in Islam, and a false prophet in Judaism. At the end of the day, these are all religious beliefs and there is no scientific proof of Jesus being any of these claims. So, this birthplace of Rama also falls under a similar category. It would be good if more Wikipedia editors joined this debate for helping to make this article more neutral. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Shri Ram Janmabhumi Mandir

The official name of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, as on the trust's website, is Shri Ram Janmabhumi Mandir. The article should be moved to a page under the same name. Wikediter.fact (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, we use names of the article per WP:COMMONNAME policy, which is Ram Mandir. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Ram Mandir Prana Pratishtha into Ram Mandir

Albeit a historical event, this is a one time event and therefore, can be made part of main page of the Temple, Anamdas (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merging will help in expanding the main article. It will help readers to get all info at one place! TheProEditor11 (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASI report

The sentences in this article indicate that ASI reports are seriously flawed but the Allahabad high court and Supreme court of India were oblivious of the points raised by critics. It is important to clarify the distinction between historians and archeologists among these critics as latter's views are of more significance. Better someone make changes to weed out this bias. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the ASI found clear physical evidence there is no proof such evidence is fabricated except for verbal testimony by the opposition which itself is unreliable. Also the scriptures mention a temple in a roughly similar area and fables do state of its destruction. Either give reasons it is flawed that are well researched or don't call it flawed. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

{{STATUS=COMPLETED}} Noname168 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: It will be automatically updated tomorrow. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ram_Mandir&oldid=1197813072"