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 Legoktm (talk | contribs) at 19:46, 25 January 2024 (→‎Requested move 25 January 2024: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]
Respectfully IP, there are devout and respected Hindu historians and scholars who have disputed ASI claims. See the sources given above as well as in the article. Also read Ram Janmabhoomi article. StarkReport (talk) 02:06, 22 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]
Hello guys,
Thanks for collaborating.
Appreciate your contributions.
Regarding ASI critique I think this page is not the place to put it (refer WP:RELEVANCE). We have another page called Ayodhya Dispute or for all critiques about the land and the structure. Also, WP:LEDE was not followed because there was almost nothing mentioned in the body of the article about critique on ASI observations.
As this is a matter of high concern I insist on following guidelines strictly. SpunkyGeek (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @SpunkyGeek, Regarding "WP:LEDE was not followed because there was almost nothing mentioned in the body", I did note about that which is why I wrote that: "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."
If given green light by other editors, I'm willing to write a single section for this issue in a concise manner. As this matter about the temple's history is more Relevant than few other minor controversies. StarkReport (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhishek0831996, 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]
    I concur. StarkReport (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also i am concerned about removal of controversies of last paragraph. which doesn't require in lead. 2409:40C0:5E:D228:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:26, 22 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.

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 per nom. Can be used to expand the article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Event is notable enough to have a separate article and is required to have a separate one to expand it in detail. The main article can have the gist of the event and a template showing link to this article. The Event was awaited for 500 Years and holds s great significance in Hinduism Homolego (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold for now Retain This is being treated as a historical event and can be expanded. Let us wait for the event to pass. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant event. Well-structured article with global coverage [1][2] --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have yet to form an opinion as to whether the event is significant enough for a standalone article, but for practical reasons alone I suggest waiting to discuss this for a few weeks. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Should be merged right away or else only more POV forks will emerge in a small period of time. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold for now There is lot of media coverage both in India and abroad related to this event. Better to wait for few more days to decide whether to create a separate article or not based on how significant enough the article can be from NPOV. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a big event. There are a lot of articles and information available. IndicAmsha (talk) 11:05, 21 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]
    Oppose Event is notable enough to have a separate article and is required to have a separate one to expand it in detail. The main article can have the gist of the event and a template showing link to this article. The Event was awaited for 500 Years and holds s great significance in Hinduism Homolego (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Event is notable enough to have a separate article and is required to have a separate one to expand it in detail. The main article can have the gist of the event and a template showing link to this article. Thewikizoomer (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT MERGE definitely the historic event in India, and this article needs to cover lots of aspects that has happened due to This event must be covered and expansion of this is needed. HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not a notable subject on its own. Should be merged here as soon as possible. CharlesWain (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Event is notable enough to have a separate article and is required to have a separate one to expand it in detail. The main article can have the gist of the event and a template showing link to this article Homolego (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a blatant POV fork. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. At this point better to cover as a section of the main article. Brandmeistertalk 10:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait as this is an article about a recent event, we should not rush to get it deleted/merged. Give it some time to see if this event has lasting effect. 109.38.134.82 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The event received enough coverage to get a seperate article. We have so many articles that are a one time event. Shall all be merged only because they are a one time event? ShaanSenguptaTalk 04:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC) information WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Misleading Wording

‘The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992.’ The last sentence creates the idea that the idols found in the mosque were fake and propaganda, and that Hindu “terrorists” destroyed the mosque using the aforementioned idea as a shield. Please note that that information is not concrete. I thaa been scientifically proven that there was a temple on that land dating back to the 12th century. The phrase “ placed in the mosque” is therefore misleading. Siraraman (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True Nishant229 (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history section is talking about the Babri Masjid, which was built in AD 1528–29.So idols of Rama and Sita found in the mosque are not seen as fake or propaganda, but rather the idea of a temple existing before Babri Masjid was supported by very few reliable sources and opposed by many (see: WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS), and Wikipidea maintains a neutral point of view .(See:WP:RNPOV) Harvici 09:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add more historical facts and this event do not suddenly starts on 1949 A.D. by one event.
It has lot of history.
1607 to 1611 A.D. -
William Finch visited India from 1607 to 1611 A.D.,
his travel account has been published by William Foster
in his book "Early Travels in India".
William Finch mentioned about ruins of the Ramachandra’s castle and houses. The travel accounts also noticed the belief of Indians that Ramchandra was born, who took flesh upon him.
I am doing my research hoping you will do as well to make this better for readers. 47.20.129.3 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Half info of Shri Ram Mandir on Wikipedia

The thing is, before Babri Masjid, it was already a birthplace of Shri Ram,but the author very carelessly did the research (maybe intentionally) and removed that part (most probably because of a lack of evidence), but he didn't forget to highlight the other accusations of political benefits from it and accuse many others without any proof(also, mentioning the 'non-Islamic' structure instead of the structure of a Hindu temple shows the real intentions of the author). Nishant229 (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The birthplace of Jesus is not doubted by scholars and have reliable sources , but in the case of Shri Rama , there are no reliable sources. The non-Islamic part is that many reliable sources mentioned it as Non-Islamic structure, like (BBC) . Please don't bring your religious and personal feelings to the talk page for discussion. (refer to WP:RNPOV) Harvici 09:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not, who are you again? 2409:4050:2D33:60B3:0:0:3A4B:CD0C (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you are violating Wikipidea policies by expressing your personal and religious views. Wikipidea maintains a neutral point of view regarding everything; it does not take bias for a certain person or group.And I am Harvici, a proud editor of Wikipidea. If you still have a problem, let this be settled by an admin. Thanks Harvici 12:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Father Joseph Tieffenthaler visited India between
1766-1771 A.D. He wrote historical and geographical
description of India in latin. In the description of the Province of Oudh, following is stated:-
“But a place especially famous is the one called Sitha Rassoi i.e. the table of Sita, wife of Ram, adjoining to the city in the South, and is situated on a mud hill.
Emperor Aurengzebe got the fortress called Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same
place. 47.20.129.3 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide reliable sources for your claim.Thanks. Harvici 07:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Construction status of the temple

Please discuss anything related to the construction status of the temple here

As of now the media sources have only confirmed that the Prana Pratishtha has been completed.

According to the plan of the temple complex the construction of outer minor temples (for Lord Hanuman, Jatayu etc). Hence the status is still under-construction. Please state your views on this. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting @Altoumulus comments on this Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the mention of Ayodhya as one of Sapta Puri in the lede

Information that Ayodhya is one of the seven holy cities to Hindus can be added in the lede in a small sentence. This piece of information may be necessary to make readers understand why Hindus had pre-eminent importance to Ayodhya for ages. I tried to add that but got reverted citing the need to provide non-primary sources as a reference. Someone can make this edit to provide this information. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats sounds like something to be added onto Ayodhya article, not Ram Mandir article. Also, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. An article lede about Ram Mandir should talk about the temple, it's past and present, it's construction and it's consecration, and the controversies attached to it. It doesn't have to describe the city it is located. We have bluelinks to the article of the cities for that very purpose. Wikipedia is not a directory or a comprehensive collection of links where all the information has to be given in one article. Kindly read WP:LEDE in depth tp understand what is to be added onto lede. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution about lead can be discussed here

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ram Mandir Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article's lead, this section
"The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992.[8][9][10] 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.[11] 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.[12]",
appears to be misleading. Firstly I think it belongs to the history section of the article more than the lead and secondly, it says that the site was previously a mosque called Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE and the idols of Ram and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949.
It is misleading because, the Babri Masjid was built there after destroying a ram temple there which was there before this mosque which is very clearly mentioned in the article of Babri Masjid [[Babri Masjid#:~:text=Many Hindus believe,8][9]|here1]] and here2. The court ruling about Ram temple being there before the masjid was built should also be equally mentioned in the lead and also it should be placed in history rather than the lead. A little explanation seems right too. Thewikizoomer (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this in here 1 above, taken from Babri Masjid article,
The mosque was located on a hill known as Ramkot ("Rama's fort"). According to Hindus, the Mughal commander Mir Baqi destroyed a pre-existing temple of Rama at the site. The existence of this temple is a matter of controversy. The Archaeological Survey of India conducted an excavation of the disputed site on the orders of the Allahabad High Court. Various materials have been found during excavation which suggest the presence of a Hindu structure beneath. The Allahabad High court noted that the Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land and the excavated underneath structure was not Islamic in nature.
Starting in the 19th century, there were several conflicts and court disputes between Hindus and Muslims over the mosque. In 1949, idols of Rama and Sita were placed inside the mosque, after which the government locked the building to avoid further disputes. Court cases were filed by both Hindus and Muslims asking for access.
here 2 refers to this,
On September 2010, the Allahabad High Court upheld the claim that the mosque was built on the spot believed to be Rama's birthplace and awarded the site of the central dome for the construction of a Rama temple.
Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you're proposing either:
  1. Removing the Babri Masjid content from the lead
  2. or adding some Ram temple content to the lead
For option 2, can you draft some specific text. How do other editors feel about these options? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to do both, because the Babri Masjid present section in the lead is too large to be mentioned there, it can moved to history section. I will try to draft and reply the text here in some time. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the modification that I wish to propose:
"The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE after destroying a pre-existing temple of Rama. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992. In September 2010, the Allahabad High Court upheld the claim that the mosque was built on the spot believed to be Rama's birthplace and awarded the site of the central dome for the construction of a Rama temple. Finally, in 2019, the Supreme Court of India, delivered the verdict to give the disputed land to Hindus for construction of a temple. 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."
Also requesting you to move this text to the history section of this article.
A line mentioning about this can be added in lead as following if required: ''The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built after destroying a pre-existing temple of Rama in 16th centure CE" Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the proposal. Waiting on input from others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with 1 line summary is enough. A para is undue in lead. However, the second part of "The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built after destroying a pre-existing temple of Rama in 16th century CE" is disputed and unsourced by references. Alternate wording: "The site is subject of the Ayodhya dispute and is the former location of the Babri Masjid, which demolished in 1992." Redtigerxyz Talk 17:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Redtigerxyz. There is no reliable sources suggesting the existence of pre Babri Masjid temple. That is unsourced and disputed and hence, should not be added. The first part looks okay to me. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources which suggest the existence of temple. A reliable article which says that the ASI survey says there is evidence of a temple beneath the mosque. - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/22/babri-mosque-to-ram-temple-a-timeline-from-1528-to-2024
A sentence following it, but many archaeologists and Muslims dispute the findings, can be observed which may suggest that it is disputed. So it is not right to call that there are no reliable sources suggesting the existence of pre Babri masjid temple. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article states , and I quote 'Hindus claim the Babri Masjid was built on the site of a temple during the first Mughal ruler Babar' , claiming and existing is two different things. The Allahabad High Court Judgements mentions Non-Islamic Structure . I propose the following edit
"The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE . The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992. In September 2010, the Allahabad High Court upheld the claim that the mosque was built on the spot believed to be Rama's birthplace and awarded the site of the central dome for the construction of a Rama temple. Finally, in 2019, the Supreme Court of India, delivered the verdict to give the disputed land to Hindus for construction of a temple. 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." Harvici 08:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That whole paragraph is already fine enough. I don't see how suggested edits will improve it. They are confusing. CharlesWain (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It is believed the temple was attacked and destroyed by the first Mughal emperor, Babur, in 1528, in his series of temple raids across northern India"

Is there a better source for this claim? The current source is an opinion piece in The Print, which is not ideal. The article "Ayodhya Issue" in The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism states free link According to Hindu nationalist ideologues, a temple had been built on the birthplace of God Ram (Ramjanmabhoomi); but in 1528 Babur, the first Moghol emperor, had this temple replaced by a mosque, the Babri Masjid. Although there is no definite archaeological evidence for the existence of a temple on that site. Given that RS do not seem to treat the claim for a pre-existing temple as unequivocal, neither should we. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. StarkReport (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic repeated content that is WP:TENDENTIOUS

The content about Supreme Court stance on ASI report and accepting them as valid is already given above the critique part.

The addition of the same information: "But, these became futile as the Supreme Court, after detailed proceedings, accepted the ASI report as valid. The Supreme Court in its landmark jugdement concluded that the underlying structure beneath the mosque was not an Islamic structure, and also that there is clear evidence that the disputed site was believed by Hindus as the Janmabhoomi (birthsite) of Rama." in a forceful manner in a subsequent section appears redundant and violates WP:NPOV and WP:Balance. StarkReport (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture details addition requested

Hello, @Firefangledfeathers can you please add these details,

"The Shri Ram Darbar is situated on the first floor, features five halls, namely Nritya Mandap, Rang Mandap, Sabha Mandap, Prarthana Mandap, and Kirtan Mandap. The pillars and walls will be adorned with statues of deities, while mandirs dedicated to Surya, Bhagwati, Ganesh, and Shiv will be placed at the four corners of the compound. Additionally, on the northern and southern arms, temples dedicated to Annapurna and Hanuman will be constructed, respectively.

The temple's foundation incorporates a 14-meter-thick layer of roller-compacted concrete, creating the appearance of artificial rock. A 21-foot-high granite plinth serves as protection against ground moisture, and the construction avoids the use of iron. The complex includes ramps and lifts for elderly and differently-abled devotees, along with a dedicated block featuring a bathing area and washrooms. Additionally, there is a pilgrims facility center catering to 25,000 people, equipped with medical and locker facilities. The project places significant emphasis on environmental and water conservation, leaving 70% of the 70-acre area as green space."

Here's the source. (Indian Express) SpunkyGeek (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpunkyGeek, if consensus develops for such an addition, feel free to use the edit request template. Another admin might get to it before me. Others might disagree, but to me the draft seems a bit too closely paraphrased. It would help to drop some detail and maybe find another source that covers some of the architectural info. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers,
The info is mostly factual hence I can understand that it may seem closely paraphrased. Here is a more concise version:
"The Shri Ram Darbar, located on the first floor, comprises five halls – Nritya Mandap, Rang Mandap, Sabha Mandap, Prarthana Mandap, and Kirtan Mandap. Adorned with deity statues, the temple includes dedicated mandirs for Surya, Bhagwati, Ganesh, and Shiv at the corners. Annapurna and Hanuman temples are on the northern and southern arms. The foundation features a 14-meter-thick roller-compacted concrete layer resembling artificial rock, with a 21-foot granite plinth for moisture protection, avoiding iron use. Accessibility is ensured with ramps, lifts, and facilities for the elderly and differently-abled. A pilgrims facility center for 25,000 people offers medical and locker services. Environmental focus preserves 70% of the 70-acre area as green space, emphasizing water conservation."
Sources: 1, 2, 3
SpunkyGeek (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear that this is a controversial request. I plan to leave it up for another 24 hours or so and implement it if no one else has input. SpunkyGeek, want to add any links? Could you format the sources as full inline citations? Both are optional, but nice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not hypothesised. It is proven that it is Ram janmabhoomi.

It is proven it is Ram janmabhoomi. It is not hypothesized. 2406:7400:92:D11B:905F:D13B:14B5:BB98 (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources. Thanks Harvici 14:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See this link and read the full info provided by the ASI HEAD and The person who led first group in old Babri structure for excavation
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/ram-mandir-opening-moment-of-great-fulfilment-satisfaction-archaeologist-k-k-muhammed-2858543 The Indoman 360 (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers
Please look into this matter. 103.165.6.28 (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make this edit until it's clear there's consensus for it. There are multiple talk page sections discussing this issue and no clear consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

According to the Infobox the temple is completed. However the first sentence is still: “The Ram Mandir is a Hindu temple under construction...” Please change the first sentence into

“The Ram Mandir is a 2024 completed Hindu temple...” 109.38.134.82 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The temple is under construction currently so first line can't be changed to "COMPLETED TEMPLE". Thanks! TheProEditor11 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, per above. Should the infobox be changed? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers, Should not be done: Since the temple is under construction, no changes should be made (neither in first line, nor in infobox) on its building status. TheProEditor11 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently under construction. Only consecration ceremony is done. Consecration ≠ Building completion! TheProEditor11 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can maybe add something like (open for worship) just below Under Construction. This can satisfy everyone. ShaanSenguptaTalk 16:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheProEditor11, I'm asking if the infobox should be changed since it currently says "Completed 22 January 2024". I understand the difference between consecration and building completion. You may be misinterpreting my comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers just one suggestion. We can remove the last para of lede as it is repeated. The same para is present in the Controversies section of the article. Do we really need the exact same things at two places in the article?
The para is - The temple has attracted a number of controversies due to alleged misuse of donation, sidelining of its major activists and politicisation of the temple by the Bharatiya Janata Party. ShaanSenguptaTalk 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This change would probably be controversial. If consensus develops, use an edit request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the temple is not completed yet, why is it still in the infobox? This is confusing. 109.38.134.82 (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the word hypothesized from the article

My Request to Wikipedia is to please remove the word hypothesized from the page as it promotes the misinformation regarding to the Shri Ram Mandir In Ayodhya. Archeological Survey Of India Has proved that there was a old Ram temple beneath the Babri Structure. So the word hypothesized is Not justified in this page The Indoman 360 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rama is a mythological figure. There's no proof that he was born at the specific site upon whnch the Ram Mandir temple currently stands. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, religion itself is mythology, but most Abrahamic Wikipedia pages refer to their stories as literature anyway. Why the double standard only here? I don't see you expressing your frustration over there. And yes, you can call it whataboutery, but the same standard must be applied everywhere in order to make Wikipedia a reliable encyclopedia, whatever that standard may be.
Regarding the word 'hypothesis,' it would be preferable if selective editing is not done. The standard applied to Abrahamic religions and their figures should be applied here. I'm not asking to whitewash anything as you would do there; just at least keep the lede free from extreme bias. 'Believed' is the right word, as per me, but I guess that it's too much to ask, considering how targeted India and Hinduism-related pages are. 2409:40E3:3A:B5D6:39E1:3B6C:5941:E7F4 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "hypothesis" is the best word. I think "supposed" is probably better. There's no evidence from the Ramayana that the site where Rama was supposedly born is the site of the former Babri Masijd. This appears to have been a development in local oral tradition that emerged during the 19th or perhaps 18th century. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of Ayodhya as the hypothesized birthplace of Ram is based on various historical and cultural perspectives, and it's essential to reflect these viewpoints without endorsing any specific belief. Wikipedia does not assert the absolute truth of any religious or historical claim but aims to present information from reliable sources, acknowledging different interpretations.
Regarding your comparison to pages on Abrahamic religions, it's important to note that Wikipedia strives to maintain neutrality across all articles (see:WP:NPOV). If there are concerns about the representation of stories or beliefs on pages related to Abrahamic religions, those issues should be addressed individually, and corrections can be made following the same neutral point of view principle , so you can raise any specific concerns or suggestions you have on the article's talk page.Thanks. Harvici 07:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct.
Even if u will se page of the holy Girnar mountain they have not written even a single word for temple of Mata Amba, Guru Gorakhnath
These points shows that Wikipedia needs somethings to make it even more better. The Indoman 360 (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have u ever even read about the Ramayan the holy indian book
That spot is the exact location.
The Ramayan has exact location with coordinates in it.
Do you have any proof that prophet Muhammad was born In what today is in SaudiA?
Do u have any proof that the Jesus Christ was born in what today is in Palestine?
And If u ask for any proof on basis of any ancient structure can u even think that in a country which is invaded several times can have any ancient structure well and safe and even the invaders were also evil and ruthless.
These are clearly double standards.
And you also should not write something which can hurt anyone's feelings.
You can simply write "believed"
If u want to remain as neutral. The Indoman 360 (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i know that Wikipedia can not say in favour of one side but if u completely ignore one side in every place that is wrong.
I'm not Against the point of keeping neutrality but the word hypothesized does not fit in the article as it feels biased and shows point of view of only one side
For neutrality you can write "believed to be" or something which is not hurtful to any side.
Please check these problems and solve them
Otherwise Wikipedia has been a great source of world knowledge and as a person who has been using It since more than 5 years would like this initiative to be more better and unbiased.🙂 The Indoman 360 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As bias in sources states ' A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view.' and religious epics and books are considered to be a biased source, I propose the following edit
It is located at Ram Janmabhoomi, which is believed by Hindus to be the exact location of the birth of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism, but the site is still considered a hypothesized birthplace of Rama. Harvici 07:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can u even say that religious books are bias on religious books for Christians and muslims
By heart I respect all worshipers as I myself believe that all religiousness lead to only one god but the double standards always used against the Hinduism religious way is very wrong.
And if you want an official record of the temple I have provided a link of K K MUHAMMED the one who lead the first official excavation on old babri structure, he admits that the old Babri structure indeed was built on a older Shri Ram temple.
And believed and hypothesized are different things if the Ram Janmabhoomi has written the word believed then this page should also have the same believed at it shows a sense of neutrality and I agree as I mentioned before that Wikipedia has to maintain neutrality in all matters.
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/ram-mandir-opening-moment-of-great-fulfilment-
satisfaction-archaeologist-k-k-muhammed-2858543 The Indoman 360 (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history part of Ram Mandir

a sentence says that Idol was placed in mosque in 1949, however I believe it should say a Idol was found in mosque in 1949. So basically, please replace placed word with found. 103.158.146.171 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources.Thanks. Harvici 07:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Links and “;” and “,” Can this sentence

“ was done by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, Chief of the RSS, Mohan Bhagwat and Chief of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra, Nritya Gopal Das, on 22 January 2024.”

Be changed into a sentence with links

was done by Prime Minister, Narendra Modi; Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath; Chief of the RSS, Mohan Bhagwat and Chief of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra, Nritya Gopal Das, on 22 January 2024.

Thanks 109.38.134.82 (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: the semi-colons have been added. For the links: since these would all be duplicate links, I'm taking this part as a controversial request. If consensus develops for an exception to MOS:DUPLINK, feel free to re-request the edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological paragraph

Maybe this is more a cosmetic edit than anything, surely the second paragraph should be in chronological order?

1. Archaeological evidence shows that a non-Islamic structure, most likely Hindu, was on the site prior to the mosque. Furthermore several first hand accounts describe a non-Islamic structure and also a house related to the birthplace of Rama.

2. Islamic mosque was built on the site. Later Hindu idols were placed in the mosque.

3. Mosque was demolished during Hindu-Muslim tensions and eventually Rama Mandir is built.

The demolition of the mosque seems more "random" in the current wording rather than because there was previously a house associated with Rama on the site. Arind8 (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree, it appears that this perspective is presenting the matter as an established fact. However, the "evidence" is deemed by other historians and archaeologists as scant and fragmented. StarkReport (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well i agree with you tho. Many far left historians like romila thapar,dn jha etc have questioned the findings.and historians like supriya verma and jaya menon says there was a buddhist structure not a hindu one.please note that there is a general.agreement that archeological evidence shows that the mosque was built on a non islamic structure.these historians just dont seem to agree on the characterstic of the structure before babri.(good thing that the invaders left half temple intact in case of gyanvapi othetwise these historians would have continued with their world class research there as well) 2409:40E3:B:8D6A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to deity sub section

The deity just focuses on Ram but that section is devoid of intricate details like the 10 avatars, hanuman, Om symbol, Swastika symbol, Surya, Garuda, lotus base as you see here https://m.timesofindia.com/india/ram-mandir-in-ayodhya-ram-lalla-idol-with-10-avatars/articleshow/107070455.cms . Though the central deity is Ram (like Durga in Durga Puja), other deities in the statue must be mentioned. This couples with fact that Lord Rama is twice shown in the statue once as the primary statue and the next one of the side pillars. —RIP B1058 (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: This will need a specific proposed text and some consensus before it can be implemented. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont close section as you said consensus is needed so we can continue discussing here. —RIP B1058 (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section is not closed, and this is the perfect spot to continue the discussion. Please don't reactivate the edit request template until there's consensus for specific language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok —RIP B1058 (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OIC condemnation

@Firefangledfeathers can you add OIC denunciation in the "Reactions to Bhumi-pujan ceremony" part?[1][2] 182.183.72.76 (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before I can implement the edit, I'll need a specific language proposal and consensus from other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "OIC General Secretariat Denounces Opening of "Ram Temple" on Demolished Historic Babri Mosque".
  2. ^ "OIC denounces opening of Ram Mandir on site of demolished Babri Masjid in India's Ayodhya".

Requested move 25 January 2024

Ram Mandir → Rama Temple, Ayodhya – Per WP:NCUE: Switch to the English name of the article's subject, with the addition of the location of the article's subject to distinguish it from homonyms located elsewhere. Æo (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Please see Talk:Ram Mandir/Archive 1#Requested move 10 September 2021. It was moved at the current title after discussion. And the proposed title is just the English translation of the previous title which was Ram Mandir, Ayodhya. Ram is spelt as Rama in English sometimes and Mandir is the Hindi word for Temple. ShaanSenguptaTalk 16:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
    Mandir(a) is not the only word used for Hindu temples in Indian languages. Is this temple exclusively called mandir? Or do other Indian languages use different words? In non-Indian languages, it may be confusing to people unfamiliar with Hinduism and Indian culture and languages. For example, one may find articles describing it redundantly as "the Ram Mandir temple", clearly written by people who are not very familiar with the topic. Æo (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the reasons given above, Google News currently gives ≈5m results for "Ram(a) Temple" and ≈3,5m results for "Ram Mandir".--Æo (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Æo, you shouldn't make both the RM opener and a bolded !vote. You can fold this support rationale into your opener or leave it as a comment (without the bold support). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected. Æo (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the English-language sources I've seen in India refer to it as the "Ram Temple", not "Rama", so that would actually be my preference, with no strong opinion on the need for "Ayodhya" as a disambiguator. Legoktm (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 25 January 2024

Remove the sentence "and also that there is clear evidence that the disputed site was believed by Hindus as the Janmabhoomi (birthsite) of Rama." from Ram Mandir#History.

See Babri_Masjid#Title_cases_verdict. There is no evidence for it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Postage stamps on Ram Mandir can be added in Popular Culture

Government Issued postage stamps on Ram Mandir twice once during Bhoomi Poojan and once during pran patistha this can be added in popular culture. https://m.timesofindia.com/india/postage-stamp-special-cover-to-mark-ram-temple-bhoomi-pujan/articleshow/77375756.cms https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pm-modi-releases-commemorative-postage-stamps-on-ram-temple-in-ayodhya/article67751435.ece MultyMetaverses (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ram_Mandir&oldid=1199049038"