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 18:24, 13 August 2020 (→Separating "Background" and "History": fixing wikitext errors & rephrased). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 12 § Ram Lalla, please contribute to the discussion there. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 20:00, 12 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]

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]
Santoshdts, I think I have covered it sufficiently now, see § Separating "Background" and "History". SerChevalerie (talk) 20:16, 12 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]
Since this claim was marked as WP:OR in the article, I have attempted to fix it. See § Separating "Background" and "History". Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Santoshdts, please read the Ayodhya dispute article. It even cites the very book that you have linked above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Th(e) existence of a 10/11th century temple is indisputable."

Amelia Reed, I mainly reverted your edits because they were not in true spirit of WP:NPOV. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see § Separating "Background" and "History" to understand my latest "reversion" of your edits. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amelia Reed, please STOP reverting my edits unless you have good reason to do so. See WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SerChevalerie Could you also do the same? First, you deny the existence of a temple instead of reading the source, then you just delete the whole sentence? As I said, I presented the information in a value-neutral manner. I did not make unproven claims or accuse any particular group of people. For a lack of better example, Would you deny the Holocaust just because you think it's not neutral to the Germans? Amelia Reed (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Ameila Reed[reply]

Your latest revert was problematic since my edit was only tangentially related to your wording. The section was plagued with OR and problematic sources. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie "Tangentially related"? Tell me, what according to you is an 'unproblematic' source? I presented the same information that The Supreme Court of India agreed on. Which part of my edit is problematic? Which part is unverified? The existence of a temple? Amelia Reed (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Ameila Reed[reply]

Amelia Reed, my edit, which you keep reverting, is a general cleanup. I called it "tangentially related" since I did not do it to revert YOU in particular, so stop reverting it please.

Your first edit was problematic because it was unsourced. Admittedly your second revert was a minor rewording, which I reverted because of better sourcing, which you provided. The next few edits of mine did not intend to concern what you were trying to say or mention: I have been intending to clean up the article for a while, which is why I opened this thread to discuss the reversion of your edits, and the below thread to discuss my cleanup.

The text you are proposing:

The mosque was built over the remains of a centuries old Hindu temple.

The text I have currently added:

Multiple archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) found evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site.

ALONG with a lot of other cleanup. If you still find this problematic then please mention why. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie My reason for editing is that the article does not show a neutral point of view. The previous sentence, "Hindus believe that the mosque was built after razing a Hindu temple." was misleading. 1. It had no sources. 2. Generalization of "Hindus"? All Hindus? What about Christians or Muslims? During the court ruling, it was clearly seen that the reality was much different. 3. "Believe" You make it sound like they had/have no proof.
I changed it to this: "The mosque was built over the remains of a centuries old Hindu temple." This was accompanied by verifiable sources. Which you again deleted by offering no real explanation.
You keep saying 'neutral', but is the article actually neutral? The destruction of Babri Masjid is mentioned in the introductory para and mentioned multiple times in the page, but the existence of a temple is mentioned once, buried away in the last paras. Only once. You keep saying 'dispute' and 'Hindu mobs' but fail to adequately explain the reasons behind their actions. The complete article subconsciously criticizes "Hindus" in general. Is that not unfair? Amelia Reed (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Amelia Reed[reply]
SerChevalerie Kautilya3 Instead of justifying your actions and giving proper reasons for reverting back my changes you tell me that you will block me from editing and then later impose sanctions. "Free speech" "Neutrality" Lol. Even after been shown proof and using value neural wording, this is the case. This is gold: " I called it "tangentially related" since I did not do it to revert YOU in particular, so stop reverting it please." Amelia Reed (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Amelia Reed[reply]
Please see WP:EW, and I've already explained to you that you didn't need to revert 2 sections of my cleanup over a single sentence.
You still haven't explained what objections you have to the current version of the article. SerChevalerie (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying 'dispute' and 'Hindu mobs' but fail to adequately explain the reasons behind their actions. That's because the dispute is much bigger than just The mosque was built over the remains of a centuries old Hindu temple. Hence the multiple redirects to the main article on the dispute. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie My objections are that this is an article about Ram Mandir but mentions the previously destroyed temple only once. Babri Masjid which was built on the remains of that temple is mentioned multiple times. The last edit I made clearly states the basic reasoning that was given by the 'mob' that destroyed the mosque in 1992. Which you deleted because? Shouldn't both sides of the picture be equally presented? I'm criticizing your use of intimidation tactics (I don't appreciate them) and the lack of 'neutrality'. The destruction of the previous temple is the core reason for the dispute and must be mentioned adequately.

I agree that reverting back changes you made to the two sections to bring back one sentence was unnecessary. But, you're yet to justify why you felt the need to delete that particular sentence.

And why did you delete this: "After an extensive archaeological survey, it was established in the supreme court that Babri Masjid was built over the remains of a 10th/11th century Hindu temple that existed on the same site." Clean up is not an adequate reason to only present one half of the picture in the introductory para.

P.S Can you tag me in your responses? Amelia Reed (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Ameila Reed[reply]

Amelia Reed, thank you. I've adequately explained why I reverted your edits prior to my cleanup of the article. Regarding the current state of the article, can you state clearly what change you are looking to see, in a "change X to Y" format, so that we may take this discussion forward? SerChevalerie (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

SerChevalerie Kautilya3 1. No, you haven't given an adequate reason for your actions. I still find your edits to be of personal motivation.

2. I see that you don't intend to acknowledge or apologize for your actions. I will stop expecting it.

Edit #1

Current: In 1528, the Mughals erected a mosque on the site, the Babri Masjid. Disputes over the rightful use of the site resulted in a crowd of Hindu protesters illegally demolishing the mosque in 1992. As part of the Supreme Court's 2019 verdict, it was directed that the temple be constructed at the site.

Change to: In 1528, the Mughals erected a mosque on the site, the Babri Masjid, which was built by Mughal rulers on the remains of !0th/11th century Hindu temple. Disputes over the rightful use of the site resulted in multiple protests since the 1850s. A crowd of Hindu protesters demolished the mosque in 1992. As part of the Supreme Court's 2019 verdict, the claim made by Hindu organizations was proven to be true. The Supreme Court directed that the temple be constructed at the site in lieu of the same.

Reason for change: Gives an adequate and complete picture of the situation. Shows both points of view. Uses value-neutral vocabulary and prevents unconscious bias.

Please give me time to suggest additional changes to the "Reception" section since it is also very biased. Amelia Reed (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Ameila Reed[reply]

Edit #2

Current: In the 1980s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), belonging to the mainstream Hindu nationalist family Sangh Parivar, launched a new movement to "reclaim" the site for Hindus and to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ram Lalla) at this spot. In November 1989, the VHP laid foundations of a temple on land adjacent to the "disputed structure".

Change to: In the 1980s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), belonging to the mainstream Hindu nationalist family Sangh Parivar, launched a new movement to reclaim the site for Hindus and to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ram Lalla) at this spot. In November 1989, the VHP laid foundations of a temple on land adjacent to the disputed structure.

Reason for change: Unnecessary use of quotations leads to bias.

Edit #3

Current: In the 16th century, the Mughals constructed a mosque, the Babri Masjid. This is believed to be the site of the Ram Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Rama. A violent dispute arose in the 1850s.

Change to: In the 16th century, the Mughals constructed a mosque, the Babri Masjid over the remains of a Hindu temple. The cause of the temple's destruction is widely debated. This is believed to be the site of the Ram Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Rama. A violent dispute arose in the 1850s.

Reason for change: Gives an adequate representation of facts.

Edit #4

Current: Multiple archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) found evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site.

Change to: Multiple archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) found evidence in favor of the Hindu, indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site.

Reason for change: Continuation of the previous para.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelia Reed (talk • contribs)

Amelia Reed, please see MOS:LEAD to understand why the first paragraph is so succinct. Also see WP:SUMMARY to understand why the "Background" section is also kept brief.
WRT edit #1, which was built by Mughal rulers on the remains of !0th/11th century Hindu temple is an archaeological claim that came about very recently; we don't know for sure if the Mughals actually knew about its existence or not (same goes for edit #3: over the remains of a Hindu temple. The cause for the temple's destruction is widely debated.).
Regarding the claim made by Hindu organizations was proven to be true and edit #4 in favor of the Hindu, these lines are WP:POVPUSHing, which is why it has been left out; the full verdict of the SC judgment is in the article 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute, for all to see.
Edit #2 is about the removal of the quotes, as far as I can see: I've copied this from the main article, Ayodhya dispute. I believe the quotes are there to indicate exactly what the VHP's side was.
The rest of your suggestions are covered in the "Background" section.
I agree that the Reception section could be balanced out more; if you find any sources for expansion please suggest them in a new thread, since this one is about the Background section. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie MOS:LEAD states that the lead section must be of a 'neutral point of view'. The current version is NOT neutral. Ram Temple is not mentioned in an article about Ram Temple?????? Edit #1 is necessary.

Edit #3: I agree that Mughal rulers may not have anything to do with the destruction of the temple or have any knowledge of the same. That is why I did not make any claims about the same. But, the mosque being built on top of a temple remains true.

Edit #2: The quotes are not needed.

I agree that Edit #4 is not needed. You can ignore the suggestions made above. Amelia Reed (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Amelia Reed[reply]


Additional changes: Edit #5 Add the following to See also section 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnath_temple 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition_of_Masjid_al-Dirar#:~:text=Masjid%20al%2DDirar%20was%20a,occurred%20in%20October%20630%20CE). 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites_in_Saudi_Arabia 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_sophia

Amelia Reed (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Reed, Regarding edit #5, could you justify Somnath Temple? The others won't do, since they're not related to India.
Edit #1: The lead's first paragraph is all about the Ram Mandir. Per WP:DUE the second paragraph is mentioned about the background. Anything more would be a POV push.
Edit #2: I'll let others weigh in, since it's from the main article.
Edit #3 is a WP:POVPUSH.
Lastly, could you please restrict your signature to the four tildes "~~~~" as per WP:SIGNATURE? Thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amelia Reed and SerChevalerie:, this discussion has become unmanageable. I have created separate sections below for the various issues being debated. Please use them from now on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit #1

Current: In 1528, the Mughals erected a mosque on the site, the Babri Masjid. Disputes over the rightful use of the site resulted in a crowd of Hindu protesters illegally demolishing the mosque in 1992. As part of the Supreme Court's 2019 verdict, it was directed that the temple be constructed at the site.

Change to: In 1528, the Mughals erected a mosque on the site, the Babri Masjid, which was built by Mughal rulers on the remains of !0th/11th century Hindu temple. Disputes over the rightful use of the site resulted in multiple protests since the 1850s. A crowd of Hindu protesters demolished the mosque in 1992. As part of the Supreme Court's 2019 verdict, the claim made by Hindu organizations was proven to be true. The Supreme Court directed that the temple be constructed at the site in lieu of the same.

Reason for change: Gives an adequate and complete picture of the situation. Shows both points of view. Uses value-neutral vocabulary and prevents unconscious bias.

Copied from above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmeliaReed and SerChevalerie:, I support the change except for the last two sentences which should say instead:
As part of the Supreme Court's 2019 verdict, the claim made by Hindu organizations was proven to be true. The Supreme Court directed that the temple be constructed at the site in lieu of the same.
In its 2019 verdict, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Hindu organisations and directed that a temple for Rama be constructed at the site.
Wikipedia cannot decide whether it constitutes "proof" or not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SerChevalerie: the claims are not "recent". See the Ayodhya dispute#Late Mughal period section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: I agree with the following change:

"In 1528, the Mughals erected a mosque on the site, the Babri Masjid, which was built by Mughal rulers on the remains of 10th/11th century Hindu temple.[1] Disputes over the rightful use of the site resulted in multiple protests since the 1850s. A crowd of Hindu protesters demolished the mosque in 1992. In its 2019 verdict, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Hindu organizations and directed that a temple for Rama be constructed at the site." Amelia Reed (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amelia Reed and Kautilya3:, just to confirm, the full change will be: In 1528, the Mughals erected a mosque on the site, the Babri Masjid, which was built by Mughal rulers on the remains of a 10th/11th century Hindu temple. Disputes over the rightful use of the site resulted in multiple protests since the 1850s. A crowd of Hindu protesters demolished the mosque in 1992. In its 2019 verdict, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Hindu organisations and directed that a temple for Rama be constructed at the site.
If this is the change, the only real problem I have with it is that it is too detailed for the lead. But I guess it will do. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marking this as  Done for now (I have updated the content, with a minor bit of editing). If anyone else has some serious concerns, please raise them here. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SerChevalerie, Amelia Reed, and Kautilya3: I have removed the claim about the 10th centure temple. The source does not support it, and I'm unaware of a historian unaffiliated with the ASI making this claim in their own voice. In fact, the source used makes it very clear this is a claim made by the VHP, and not by neutral archaeologists. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.academia.edu/6618156/Ayodhya_s_sacred_landscape_ritual_memory_politics_and_archaeological_fact_2000_

Edit #2

Current: In the 1980s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), belonging to the mainstream Hindu nationalist family Sangh Parivar, launched a new movement to "reclaim" the site for Hindus and to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ram Lalla) at this spot. In November 1989, the VHP laid foundations of a temple on land adjacent to the "disputed structure".

Change to: In the 1980s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), belonging to the mainstream Hindu nationalist family Sangh Parivar, launched a new movement to reclaim the site for Hindus and to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ram Lalla) at this spot. In November 1989, the VHP laid foundations of a temple on land adjacent to the disputed structure.

Reason for change: Unnecessary use of quotations leads to bias.

Copied from above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amelia Reed and SerChevalerie:, I support the removal of the scare quotes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marking this as  Done. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit #3

Current: In the 16th century, the Mughals constructed a mosque, the Babri Masjid. This is believed to be the site of the Ram Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Rama. A violent dispute arose in the 1850s.

Change to: In the 16th century, the Mughals constructed a mosque, the Babri Masjid over the remains of a Hindu temple. The cause of the temple's destruction is widely debated. This is believed to be the site of the Ram Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Rama. A violent dispute arose in the 1850s.

Reason for change: Gives an adequate representation of facts.

Copied from above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amelia Reed:, I only one sentence being added: "The cause of the temple's destruction is widely debated.". I don't see any evidence for this. So I don't support this change. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: The sentence added is "...the Babri Masjid over the remains of a Hindu temple. The cause of the temple's destruction is widely debated." Amelia Reed (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Amelia Reed[reply]

Where is the evidence this "has been debated"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: YOu can exclude the line, but I believe its exclusion will lead to Islamophobia. In case you choose to not exclude the line, refer to, https://www.academia.edu/6618156/Ayodhya_s_sacred_landscape_ritual_memory_politics_and_archaeological_fact_2000_ Amelia Reed (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about a debate on the temple's destruction here. Can provide a quotation? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit #4

Current: Multiple archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) found evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site.

Change to: Multiple archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) found evidence in favor of the Hindu, indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site.

Reason for change: Continuation of the previous para.

Copied from above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amelia Reed and SerChevalerie:, I think the original version was clear enough. No value added by the new version.
Incidentally, there were no "multiple excavations". There was only one, done in a hurry because the court gave a tight deadline. There was no public debate about the conclusions. While there was considerable debate in the media, he ASI chose not to engage with it. So we have no clue what it did find. Doubts persist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, see Ayodhya dispute § Excavations, where it says Archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1970, 1992 and 2003 in and around the disputed site have found evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site. Upon my investigation, it is not properly sourced. That being said, the "claims" are mentioned in more detail in Archaeology of Ayodhya, which is summarised in the article on the dispute. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is wrong. B.B.Lal had done some excavations in the neighbourhood, but that wasn't an ASI excavation. ASI might have provided support but it was his private project. The 1992 thing was not an excavation, nor was it done by ASI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, I'll work on fixing it, then. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit #5

Change: Add the following to "See also" section:

  1. Somnath temple
  2. Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar
  3. Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia
  4. Hagia Sophia

Reason for change: Not mentioned The first three places of worship were subjected to religious persecution. The third one can be disregarded, it is different than the others on the list. Hagia Sophia due to the recent controversy. It was a Roman Catholic Church, which was turned into a Mosque, a Museum, and now a Mosque again.

Copied from above. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Reed, could you please justify each of these? SerChevalerie (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SerChevalerie Because the first three places of worship were subjected to religious persecution. The third one can be disregarded, it is different than the others on the list. Hagia Sophia due to the recent controversy. It was a Roman Catholic Church, which was turned into a Mosque, a Museum, and now a Mosque again. Amelia Reed (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amelia Reed, per MOS:SEEALSO and MOS:NAVLIST this isn't an issue. I'm ok with #1 and #4 (although they are only tangentially related, so I'll wait to see if anyone else has objections). You mentioned that we can skip #3. Wouldn't #2 make more sense in an article like Demolition of the Babri Masjid than over here? SerChevalerie (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SerChevalerie Babri Masjid is already linked multiple times in the page. Adding it in the "See also" section seems redundant. Amelia Reed (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that did seem to be there from before. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC) It's not in the "See also" section? SerChevalerie (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Amelia Reed (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Reed, the current "See also" section only has the below:
What exactly are you referring to? SerChevalerie (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking in reference to this? "Babri Masjid is already linked multiple times in the page. Adding it in the "See also" section seems redundant." Amelia Reed (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Reed, yes. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Babri Masjid is mentioned in the article multiple times and the words are hyperlinked to take the reader to the proper article. Wouldn't it be redundant to mention it again in the 'See Also' section? Regarless, feel free to make your own decision on the same and the rest. I'm taking a break from Wikipedia so, I won't be replying hereafter. Amelia Reed (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional commentary

SerChevalerie Clearly we cannot come to an agreement about this. While I value neutrality, you seem to be in disagreement about the same. I will go ahead and make edits #1, #2 and #3 tomorrow unless we reach a different conclusion. I'm open to objections and contrary opinions from anyone. Please feel free to let me know your disagreements above. In view of your past actions that were in bad faith, I will disregard any future objections that are of no additional value from you and Kautilya3.

Edit 5: Is there a rule that says that other articles only from India should be linked? Amelia Reed (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Reed, that's not how WP:CONSENSUS works. Also, please sign your comments by sticking to the four tildes "~~~~". Anything additional is unnecessary (and personally makes it difficult for me to immediately reply to using the Reply-link tool). SerChevalerie (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separating "Background" and "History"

Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:CFORK, I have taken content from the stable article Ayodhya dispute and added it to the "Background" section. The "History of the temple" section contains content only relevant to the current temple. Let me know if anyone has any suggestions (or concerns); I have mainly done this to prevent and separate any WP:OR from what the established facts are. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can there be "History" for this temple, which does not even exist yet? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've currently listed the 1989 Shilanyas and the fact that Ram Lalla was a litigant in the case over there. (The second fact may not be directly related to this article, on a side note). SerChevalerie (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have read through both the sections and they are excellent! Great job! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, thanks! "Prior construction efforts" is a much more suitable heading, agreed. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie Could you please correct the term "Hindu complex" in the text you've added: A 2003 archaeological excavation by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) found evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex had existed on the site. If you would like to base the comment on ASIs report, it said: "it was claimed that there were remains of an ancient Hindu temple under the disputed structure." Best Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 14:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ram_Mandir&oldid=972768263"