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 Santoshdts (talk | contribs) at 19:38, 11 August 2020 (→Mention of structures unrelated to Islam found beneath the disputed site: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is currently confusing

This line in the article is currently confusing and needs explanation and context. - "In 1989 Kameshwar Chaupal was one of the first to lay the foundation stone for the temple." DTM (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source from The Hindu - link DTM (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What happened in 1989? the foundation stone was laid but....? 1988 the design was made too...DTM (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

What should the title of this page be? >>>

  1. Ram Mandir, Ayodhya
  2. Ram temple, Ayodhya
  3. Ram Temple, Ayodhya
  4. Ram Temple
  5. Ram Mandir
  6. Ram mandir
  7. Ram Janmabhoomi temple
  8. Bhavya Ram Mandir
  9. Divya Bhavya Ram Mandir

DTM (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page name should be Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir because the trust has also name it that and hoardings have also been put up in Ayodhya to tell about the ground breaking ceremony and the name mentioned on the official hoardings by the trust tell the name of the temple as Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir Arjunuws (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was also waiting for something official like hoardings or posters for the title of the temple. After this official update I moved the page. Arjunuws (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir/Temple is accurate because it literally means, Temple on Ram Janmabhoomi. Arjunuws (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I second Vanamonde93 on this. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the redlinks should redirect to this page. I volunteer to do it, if there are no objections.SerChevalerie (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many official sources refer to the temple as ‘Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir’. Even the official page of the managing trust says ‘Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir’. [1] Agastya11 (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Agastya11 (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead with the redlink redirects and any others that aren't in the list. Thanks! DTM (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramlala, Ram

Damiealexan, your edit. This wasn't a typo. Ramlala is alright too. DTM (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiplomatTesterMan; Kautilya3 Is ther a possibility to replace Lord Ram with Ramlalla? As this temple is built for Ramlalla (Infant Ram). I made a Google search on the name Ramlalla, and this does have some sources to back the claim. Regards Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 18:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share those sources here? SerChevalerie (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to the deity as Ram Lalla (Infant Rama) [3] Agastya11 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie Here are few:
I hope these will suffice to change the deity as Ram Lalla in Infobox, but not sure whether would be helpful in the body. Unless the presiding deity is briefly explained first. Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 19:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Santoshdts, Agastya11, thanks! SerChevalerie (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I hope COMMONNAME would not be an issue here. Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 19:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting this out! DTM (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/ShriRamTeerth?s=21
  2. ^ Twitter
  3. ^ "Green Attire For Ram Lalla On August 5 In Ayodhya, No Controversy Over Colour Of Deity's Clothes': Banaras Scholar".

Request for Semi-protected

Due to the ongoing events related to this article it has heavy editing and many appear to be disruptive. Hence it will be better if it were Semi-protected. Agastya11 (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, have requested for the same. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the page protection related to the article, it has autoconfirmed

Times Square plan cancelled/stopped

Currently the article has this line - Plans to show Lord Ram's image at Times Square have also been made.. However today (5 Aug) news reports say:

Is mention of this needed in the subsection for the ground breaking ceremony or should it be left out? DTM (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiplomatTesterMan, they went ahead with it in the end: Largest digital display of Lord Ram shines in New York's Times Square
Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, saw the multiple news reports online. Cheers. DTM (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ram Lalla" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ram Lalla. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5#Ram Lalla until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images used/ Sashtang pranam

Is there a usable picture anywhere of Narendra Modi doing a sashtang pranam on the 5th August? A picture that can be uploaded onto commons? ET, TOI DTM (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article has this picture File:Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi performing Bhoomi Pujan at ‘Shree Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir’, in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh on August 05, 2020.jpg. Do you think it should be replaced by this one (Modi on his knees) File:The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi performing Bhoomi Pujan at ‘Shree Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir’, in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh on August 05, 2020.jpg? (However currently the first one is an ITN Nomination) DTM (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The demolition of the Babri Masjid should be briefly mentioned in the lede

I think the controversial circumstances by which land was cleared to rebuild the current temple should be included in the lede of the article, not just in the body. I would argue that it's a really significant aspect in the history of the site, and can be briefly and neutrally mentioned to provide context. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's got quite an odd POV at the moment. The comment that Muslims are welcoming this is pretty grim too. 90.252.190.223 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have kept it WP:NPOV in the lead. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement, but both in the lede and in the body, it mentions the "demolition" of the mosque, with no mention of who did it. I think this is unsatisfactory, because it's highly significant that it was an illegal demolition by a crowd of protesters, not an officially-mandated removal. I'll tweak the language some, realizing this is a sensitive issue, and we'll see if we can find a satisfactory phrasing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MatthewVanitas, good point. It could definitely be expanded a lot more in the body. The lead is fine IMO, since this article is about the Ram Mandir, not the demolition of the Masjid. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected article

Please change 5 days to 6 days BECAUSE THE PAGE IS PROTECTED

LoLgU, we had a few incidents of WP:VANDALISM. You may submit an edit request for any changes that you wish to see. You can use the template: {{SPER}}. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Please change 5 days to 6 days". Where? Which line? Do you have a reliable source to back your claim? SerChevalerie (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE CHANGE THE ARTICLE
To what? SerChevalerie (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2020

I CAN'T EDIT THE RAM MANDIR, AYODHYA ARTICLE. UNPROTECT THE RAM MANDIR,AYODHYA ARTICLE LoLgU (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC) WHAT CHANGES YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE ARTICLE:[reply]

LoLgU,  Not done, please state exactly what changes you would like to see in the article. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on August 7, 2020.

The second paragraph mentions that "only" in 1850 the "dispute turned violent". I think the word "only" expresses a POV that violates the Neutral Point of View principle on Wikipedia. Removing it will make the lemma better. 213.93.223.201 (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Reworded. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image (for now)?

Can this be used as the infobox image for now? (until a usable one of the temple appears?) Behind Modi is an artists rendition of the temple. DTM (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressing the gathering at Ram Temple. Visible behind him is an artists depiction of the temple
Isn't that redention copyrighted? © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 14:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbhotch: Noted. So it can't even be used in the way it is currently being used in the article? DTM (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It can be used but it may be nominated for deletion at any moment if this template doesn't apply. If it does apply, it should be added to the photo and it can be included. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 22:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2020

Please link the appearance of "Hanuman" in the article. I've never heard of this deity and at first wondered if it were the name of a municipality where "Hanuman Garhi temple" was located, and the prime minister was obtaining some sort of planning permission. Also, the same section refers both to "Hanuman Garhi temple" and "Hanumangarhi". Could you change one of them to match the other? 64.203.187.71 (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done SerChevalerie (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of structures unrelated to Islam found beneath the disputed site

I don't see the article having mentioned the supreme court and Archaeological Survey of India's findings of non-islamic structures beneath the disputed site, it is definitely not mentioned every time it is "alleged that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a temple". This information need to be added. The findings are mentioned in quite a few papers. I will organise the sources and insert it here in time. Awaiting suggestions till then. Then the "alleged" word can be removed. As it was definitely constructed over something that was not Islamic in origin. Santosh L (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Santoshsatvik, since this is a very contentious claim, you will have to back it up with multiple scholarly sources; regular newspaper articles won't do. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A supreme court order confirming ASI findings. I simply want the findings to be mentioned. I don't intend to claim anything other than that "there was something found beneath that demolished mosque which was not Islamic". There can be no "scholarly" articles on findings by ASI. Newspaper articles quoting the findings is more than sufficient. "Scholarly" articles may be required if I want to claim that those findings definitely point to a Previous Ram Temple, which I am not.Santosh L (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still sounds pretty contentious to me. Go ahead with your hunt for sources, we'll evaluate them once you're done; I was just suggesting in the meanwhile. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh do tell what exactly is contentious? The point that something was found beneath the demolished mosque or something else? I don't get you. If it was on my point, why exactly is the Archaeological Survey of India not a scholarly source? And why is newspaper article quoting the ASI insufficient?Santosh L (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the point I want to mention:- The Court observed that archaeological evidence from the Archaeological Survey of India shows that the Babri Masjid was constructed on a "structure", whose architecture was distinctly indigenous and non-Islamic. Summary of 2019 Supreme Court Verdict — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshsatvik (talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why this is necessary in this article, when it's already mentioned in the main article and the article about the 2019 SC decision. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds WP:DUE to me because if the dispute is mentioned then the much-discussed ASI report, given it was upheld by the court should be mentioned. Since you asked for scholarly source, I would recommend using this book where enough details are provided at p.373, 374. Santosh L (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But why in the article about the temple? It was significant in the judgement, no doubt, but why is it significant here? SerChevalerie (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But why in the article about the temple?: As the article is about temple, and contains a Section named "History". This seems a valid suggestion. Unless someone has objections with History Section itself or intends to include selective contents related to history of the site. Moreover, the content is available on other article with connected subject. Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 19:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is Rama Janmabhoomi?

Santoshsatvik, you have reinstated this content:

According to the ancient Indian epic, Ramayana, Rama was born in Ayodhya. Between This became known as Ram Janmabhoomi or Ram's birthplace.

Can you provide a WP:RS for this claim? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least, be specific: the mosque didn't cover the whole of Ayodhya, did it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Originally I was reverting an edit and thought about making the improvement soon. I have improved it now here by removing the 2nd sentence, but "According to the ancient Indian epic, Ramayana, Rama was born in Ayodhya" can be easily backed with WP:RS though, such as [1]. Santosh L (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue is that there is no evidence of the place being regarded as Rama's birth place until after Aurangzeb. So, we can't say the mosque was built on Rama Janmabhoomi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
being regarded as Rama's birth place until after Aurangzeb. any specified date/period for your argument? Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 18:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ram_Mandir&oldid=972385814"